USAF Hiding Its Controversial Flyoff Between the A-10 and F-35

[Bravo52]

I had a late friend who was a B52 pilot (Lt. Colonel M. McCullough) who loved the plane and how even after 50 years it was still getting better, and I used to watch them pass right over my house when I lived in the Deep Creek area just north of Fairchild.

Spent some time flying in that area (Yakima Range)...also spent some time getting pushed around at Fairchild . One of the most important aspects of modern aerial warfare is battlespace awareness. The B-52 has a modern communications and bombing system that reaches far beyond the plane. It can drop (release) everything from good old dumb bombs (Mk 82) to the newest hypersonic missile...and it can carry a $hit-ton (technical term) of them.

 

[rharshberger]

Spent some time flying in that area (Yakima Range)...also spent some time getting pushed around at Fairchild . One of the most important aspects of modern aerial warfare is battlespace awareness. The B-52 has a modern communications and bombing system that reaches far beyond the plane. It can drop (release) everything from good old dumb bombs (Mk 82) to the newest hypersonic missile...and it can carry a $hit-ton (technical term) of them.

I have seen B52's enroute from Fairchild to Boardman Bombing Range (NWSTF Boardman), from above the aircraft while driving on I-82, there is a point where the bombers would be below the highway on their approch to the Horse Heaven Hills (even a 1000 agl, the bomer is still 500' or so below the summit as it approaches). Pretty cool to see. I have trained a Yakanistan aka Yakima Firing Center during my time in the service (Army).

 

[modeltrains]

You don't buy a Porsche to plow fields.

Well, actually ...
(okay, I'll give you a pass because of the verb tense employed)

 

[rharshberger]

Well, actually ...
(okay, I'll give you a pass because of the verb tense employed)

I was waiting for someone to go there...yep Ferdinand Porsche started out making...cars...then tanks...even tractors through licensee's.

 

[OverTheTop]

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-...-deliveries-for-new-a-10-wings/148805.article

 

[Sooner Boomer]

Longer article...

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...air-force-wants-warthog-retired-in-five-years

 

[Scott_650]

If the AF leadership wasn’t so shortsightedly stubborn about the Army flying fixed-wing aircraft they’d have transferred the A-10s to Army aviation a long time ago - that’s a win-win proposition since they could retain depot-level maintenance of the iron and the training mission (in the whacky world of military budgeting those activities can generate “profits” - at least on paper which is all that counts there) while handing the operational and sustainment costs over to the Army.

But in the long run RPVs are going to replace aircraft like the A-10 and AC-130 (and conventional cargo aircraft for “the last tactical mile”). Lower costs (all the costs are lower for RPVs - development, acquisition, sustainment, employment, training, maintenance) plus the US military’s culture of casualty avoidance will push RPVs into CAS and logistics missions. Why risk multimillion dollar manned aircraft and their crews to put ordinance or pallets on targets in the battle zone when a “drone” can do it cheaper and safer?

I was lucky enough to spend some time at Myrtle Beach before it was shut down - watching the A-10s fly over the beach on their way to the offshore range was really cool. Plus the handful of times I watched them take-off at Kirkuk during my short time there was even better. The A-10 is an amazing plane but, for better or worse, soon to be obsolete.

 

[rharshberger]

If the AF leadership wasn’t so shortsightedly stubborn about the Army flying fixed-wing aircraft they’d have transferred the A-10s to Army aviation a long time ago - that’s a win-win proposition since they could retain depot-level maintenance of the iron and the training mission (in the whacky world of military budgeting those activities can generate “profits” - at least on paper which is all that counts there) while handing the operational and sustainment costs over to the Army.

But in the long run RPVs are going to replace aircraft like the A-10 and AC-130 (and conventional cargo aircraft for “the last tactical mile”). Lower costs (all the costs are lower for RPVs - development, acquisition, sustainment, employment, training, maintenance) plus the US military’s culture of casualty avoidance will push RPVs into CAS and logistics missions. Why risk multimillion dollar manned aircraft and their crews to put ordinance or pallets on targets in the battle zone when a “drone” can do it cheaper and safer?

I was lucky enough to spend some time at Myrtle Beach before it was shut down - watching the A-10s fly over the beach on their way to the offshore range was really cool. Plus the handful of times I watched them take-off at Kirkuk during my short time there was even better. The A-10 is an amazing plane but, for better or worse, soon to be obsolete.

So in the future whoever loses the cyber-war better have a backup plan to win using "dumb" equipment. Military networks while incredibly robust and protected, are a target and the ability of an enemy to hack, disable, feed disinformation and other related stuff will win the war.

 

[Scott_650]

So in the future whoever loses the cyber-war better have a backup plan to win using "dumb" equipment. Military networks while incredibly robust and protected, are a target and the ability of an enemy to hack, disable, feed disinformation and other related stuff will win the war.

The cyber battlefield and by extension LEO space are critical realms we need to dominate in order to prevail. Unfortunately our reliance on a certain large Asian nation’s manufacturing base creates a definite soft spot. And our relative lack of mass manufacturing capacity that the reliance on “dumb” weapons (the use of which implies leaning more towards battles of attrition rather than overwhelming technological advantage) requires makes securing cyberspace and LEO space even more important.

 

[smstachwick]

My totally unsophisticated take: the A-10 and F-35 are designed to fulfill different missions that were historically filled by aircraft of dissimilar capabilities.

The A-10 seems to have a mission profile more akin to the Army and Marine Corp’s attack helicopters, the AH-64 Apache and the AH-1Z Viper, respectively. Buzzing around at low altitude, striking fear into the hearts of tank crews, and being able to risk taking a substantial hit, just with the trade-offs that come with operating a fixed-wing aircraft instead of a helo.

The Air Force variant of the F-35 appears to be taking pages out of the F-15E Strike Eagle’s playbook, with the F-35A being capable of interdiction missions beyond the battlefield using low-observable stealth technology to not get hit in the first place, as the Strike Eagles would do with fast low-altitude runs using terrain-following radar. The Marine Corps version appears to be a STOVL or V/STOL strike aircraft filling the role of the AV-8B Harrier II, while the Navy version appears to be a carrier-based strike fighter with stealth capability, a modern replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. I understand that the platform also has some electronic warfare and ISR capabilities, so perhaps it could be a candidate for an EA-18G Growler replacement.

That’s quite a lot of territory to cover with a single airframe family, and some compromises were inevitably made to achieve it, namely massive cost overruns and program delays. Is it really wise to ask it to do the fixed-wing battlefield attack aircraft job on top of that? The real test of that will be when those things get involved in a real war. Hopefully it doesn’t come to that.