Nah, I respectfully disagree as fully autonomous UAVs will rule the world. I helped create one of the first UAVs in 1971 at JHU/APL under a DARPA contract. It's taken some time, but (IMHO) conventional fighter/bomber a/c will become obsolete in my lifetime. I'm still a fan of the A-10 though. Sent by incredibly fast electrons
During WW2 the Russians used their air force as an extension of the infantry and they decimated the enemy ground forces with low level close cooperation with their army. The Sturmovick with 40mm cannons was the most produced airplane in the Russian military and the most feared by the German infantry AND the tankers. Our P-47 was effectively used not only as a fighter but it was called the King of The Strafers for its destruction of German airfields and aircraft on the ground. ISIS has no air force but it may have a few tanks. It does have a lot of small vehicles that are heavily armed and many other weapons that could quickly be neutralized by the A-10. Deployed in numbers and using their low level tactics to apply their heavy firepower would make them a fearful and effective weapon. During the war I experienced some strafing exercises and you cannot hear a fighter coming in at low altitude until the rounds start hitting and then the airplane is on you. I simply can't understand why the "people in the Pentagon" can't see what a great weapon this airplane is and how much good it would do. It is designed to do exactly what this mess in Syria and Libya requires.
I can't help but wonder what a couple of A10's and an AC130 could do to those long lines of trucks loading fuel and oil that ISIS is selling? Not an expert in the field by any means but it does seem to me stone age weapons have a real use. The 130 may not be the best choice, not sure what they have for defense at those sites but a strike or two like that and they might just have a little trouble finding customers afterwards. I also think there is a real world psychological value to the way things are destroyed sometimes.
Will significant targets exist when engaging units from the air ? The insurgents will disperse operatives and equipment. How much will it cost to sortie four F-35's to drop a few smart weapons on 'insurgents' ? In reality, will the weapons find insurgents or civvies ? With asymmetrical warfare, it would probably be more advantageous to have an economical platform with a lot of firepower, legs, and slow speeds. The A.F. never cared for the Hog or the CAS mission
I think you are RIGHT on the money. Individual targets? Other platforms would do just fine. A long line of trucks or rail cars? Nothing more efficient or effective than a low level strafing run.
As long as there are no MANPADs or IADS, the A-10 will do fine and that is the kind of war we will fight against ISIS. The GAU-8 outranges just about all the truck mounted guns ISIS uses, so a good pilot can stand off and trash them with relative impunity. It is usually the one you do not see that causes the problem. With the A-10, you need good cooperation between the aircraft and a FAC, and the administration has been loathe to allow FACs into the combat zone. That limits effectiveness of all air assets and also leads to things like the AC-130 shooting up a hospital. The A-10 has a Pave Penny system that allows a FAC to designate a target and have the A-10 driver see the laser spot. Combine that with the new digital avionics suite and PGMs, and an A-10 can do some serious damage. Especially with a large load of the new SDBs and future SDBIIs, which allow stand-off and engaging multiple targets.
Yeah, Taz. That's just what I was thinking...i guess. Just use all those things that you are talking about.
Terry, Not to play the devil advocate's here: but there are already many MANPADS in Syria. The topic was discussed at large here before the engagement of the french Air Force and Aéronavale, and the consensus is that many have already reached the ranks of ISIS. I have not many links in english, but here is some food for thought: Can MANPADS Be Controlled in Syria? - The Daily Beast Rgds
Affirmative, I am sure they have some older MANPADS there that can largely be negated using flares. When the newer ones show up that use imaging technology and have anti-flare software, time to get nervous. But we have DIRCM systems to counter those on some aircraft and the A-10 can be fitted with those if it has not already been fitted. Against airliners, the old Redeye/ SA-7/ SA-16 MANPADS will be pretty effective. I had an SA-16 fired at me in Desert Storm, but we just outclimbed it.
Hmmm. I don't want autonomous tho, I want a link to the guys on the ground getting shot at so in effect they're their own FAC. Let em fly em themselves. BTW? IMO DARPA is something the Pentagon/DOD or whoever got right. Our own skunk works. Buddy had to do rehab after volleyball/spinal injury. Guy wheels into the unit one day, paraplegic after motorcycle crash. Crew shows up, stuffs him into an eksoskeleton, and he stands up for the first time in 6 years. DARPA. (Back to the A-10)
+1 A *lot* more than a skunk works though; Credit those guys with the birth of the internet ("arpanet") back in the day and the (now annual) autonomous vehicle challenge etc. I've noted before, I'd be a lot happier at tax time if I could direct my payment directly to them or NASA....... Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Cheers, Ian
Fred- I am working for DARPA on the XS-1 program so you can send your check directly to me if it makes you feel any better.
<<For example, the 2015 request includes $27 million for XS-1, a concept for a reusable space plane that could ultimately fly 10 times in 10 days and boost payloads into low-Earth orbit for less than $5 million per launch. The program received $10 million in 2014. "Technologies derived from the XS-1 program will enable routine space launch capabilities with aircraft-like cost, operability and reliability," a DARPA announcement from November 2013 reads. "The long-term intent is for XS-1 technologies to be transitioned to support not only next-generation launch for Government and commercial customers, but also global reach hypersonic and space access aircraft." The agency hopes to select a single vendor next year for the final design and development of the vehicle, which could make its initial test flight in 2018. DARPA sees the program potentially transitioning to the Air Force, the Navy or a commercial operator, the budget documents said. >> You blew the 27MM ALREADY?? (Well, it IS December...) Dunno. Space Elevators look a lot more practical... (Duckin...)
Actually, a lot of A-10's have LITENING pods these days... way beyond the Pave Penny. There are a lot of JTAC types floating around the battlefield in "advisor" roles. Laser designation with a SOFLAM type laser is pretty rare now that onboard visual sensors are so good. Visual talk ons are now pretty much de rigour unless you get cleared for a Bomb on Coordinate (BOC) mission, which I haven't heard of for a long time. Source: I'm JTAC qualified.
Brian- Visual talk-ons did not work too well for the hospital the AC-130 shot up. Litening pods and LANTIRN pods are not designed to pick up laser spots as far as I know. They are imaging and targeting devices, like the PAVE TACK pods I flew with in Desert Storm, but much smaller and with improved technology and sensor sensitivity. Fred- Three primes working on XS-1 right now and much of the 2015 money has been obligated to the contractors, but not spent yet. Pretty sure it is two year money. FY15 ended on 30 September. RLVs are just a matter of money and time. We already have the technology to do one. Space elevators are a little further out.
LANTIRN was two pods. The AAQ-13 nav pod which was basically a FLIR pod that projected its imagery into a HUD and became obsolete as soon as we all started flying with NVGs at medium altitude as standard practice. The AAQ-14 targeting pod was the workhorse pod allowing target imaging and designating (via a laser) for PGM employment. It had no laser finding capability. AAQ-28 is LITENING and it is the next gen targeting pod that has replaced -14 with high def target imaging and it does have a laser spot tracking capability, amongst many others. -28 went on to A-10C thus giving them autonomous laser PGM employment capabilities, which before LITENING required a second -14 or -28 equipped F-16 or F-15E to "buddy lase" the intended target, with the A-10 dropping the LGB within the bomb's envelope to find the laser spot. This was a pretty complex exercise, but we did it often.
Will- Good to know, thanks. My LGB experience, except for helping DTRA with HDBT, ended with Desert Storm. We self designated all of our own LGBs using PAVE TACK.
Apparently they figured out that this was the best thing to use against ISIS.... Air Force delays mothballing A-10 Thunderbolt to combat Islamic State - Washington Times As a side note to the above conversation on targeting, the A-10 was for a long time the Red Headed Step Child and they were the last thing to get upgraded to modern targeting.. During that time (first Gulf War), the guys from Hughes (who made the Maverick who we were working with) said that they would load a bunch of ordinance on the A-10 and the last thing was an IR Maverick. The pilot would use the IR Maverick sensor to drop all of his dumb bombs since the aircraft didn't have an IR sensor built in. The last thing shot was the Maverick after the rest of the load was done. The only downside to the A-10 was the lack of power for really hot day op's. On some missions it was down to a "Barney Fife" load... One big smart bomb was all it could take off with on a 120 degree day....
USAF says they will be around until at least 2022 now. The original decision to retire them was pre-ISIL and pre-other SWA screw-ups. They did the high altitude, hot day testing at Cannon AFB, NM when I was there. Loss of engine on take-off on a high density altitude day pretty much guaranteed they had to jettison their ordnance. One reason for testing at Cannon, lots of space for ordnance jettison. Other reason, 4295' field elevation and oft triple digits in the summer.
I'm shocked that somebody has used some gray matter in the use of a great weapon. Build another 500 and kick some ass!
Bob- May take some work, though, all the flying and that big cannon's recoil is actually causing the noses to droop on some aircraft.
No problem. Jack it up, slap a doubler on it, buff it out in the morning, and LAUNCH. Gotta remember , we've got engineers and aluminimum. Fixum!
