Contact  |  Baseops Wiki  |  Military Pay  |  Military Discounts  |  Air  Force UPT  |  Aviation  Jobs   |  Aviation  Medicine   |  Pilot Supplies  |  Donate

Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with OpenID Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

AF Light Air Support Aircraft


  • Please log in to reply
506 replies to this topic

#401 ATIS

ATIS

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:14 AM

http://www.aviationw..._p06-588656.xml

I'd give my left nut to go fly this as a NFO/CSO/WSO...whatever you call it these days.

ATIS
  • 0

#402 epsilon

epsilon

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

Posted 17 September 2013 - 04:41 AM

Sort of a different venture being developed by textron/cessna. Interesting concept.

http://www.ainonline...on-tactical-jet

Edited by epsilon, 17 September 2013 - 04:42 AM.

  • 0

#403 BFM this

BFM this

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CinSity

Posted 17 September 2013 - 11:43 AM

Kinda sounds like an updated version of the A-9.
  • 0
"You should accept the fact that you are a huge pu*sy and SIE from life." -Porkchop_A10

#404 Tank

Tank

    Flight Lead

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Finding a full time job

Posted 17 September 2013 - 12:32 PM

Sort of a different venture being developed by textron/cessna. Interesting concept. http://www.ainonline...on-tactical-jet


It looks like the child of a F-18 and SU-25...
  • 0

#405 GoCanes7

GoCanes7

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:paddling out

Posted 18 September 2013 - 10:01 AM

Looks like a Tomcat of old
  • 0
Now I don't have to tell you good folks what's been happening in our beloved little town. Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped. The time has come to act, and act fast. I'm leaving.

#406 Pancake

Pancake

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 09:24 AM

Is it possible that by quickly mothballing the A-10 the Air Force is intentionally creating a capability gap to drive the purchase of a Fifth-Gen designated CAS airplane?

In 2009 a buddy of mine was at Oshkosh and heard a Cessna higher-up talking to AF officials about building a new CAS jet. Well, this is that airplane. Congress would never pay for another new platform with the F-22 and F-35 debacles, and the outstanding performance of the A-10 as a CAS platform (no apparent "need" for a new jet). However, with all services screaming for a designated CAS airplane, and the desire of the Air Force to be all Fifth-Gen, this new Cessna jet is positioned very well to have a future.

If all of this is intentional, it's genius negotiating strategy with Congress and the other services, assuming we don't have another ground war in the next 5 or so years.

Edited by Pancake, 21 September 2013 - 09:26 AM.

  • 0

#407 Danny Noonin

Danny Noonin

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,030 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2013 - 09:38 AM

Is it possible that by quickly mothballing the A-10 the Air Force is intentionally creating a capability gap to drive the purchase of a Fifth-Gen designated CAS airplane?

No
  • 0

#408 Pancake

Pancake

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:21 AM

Wow. Insightful response.

My bad. This is BO.net. Continue bitching...

Edited by Pancake, 21 September 2013 - 10:34 AM.

  • 0

#409 Danny Noonin

Danny Noonin

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,030 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:34 AM

You asked a yes or no question. What the fuck do you want?

No, it's not possible. This one is completely money related. There is no vast conspiracy to axe the A-10 in order to develop a 5th gen pure CAS platform. What exactly would be 5th gen about it, by the way? Stealthy? No real need for that. If we're doing down n'dirty CAS A-10 style, they pretty much know we're there without a radar, don't they? Advanced sensor fusion? Advanced handling? Advanced propulsion?

The money crunch is real. Very very real. It is not some manufactured illusion to mask secret plans or a military-industrial complex conspiracy.

Is that better?
  • 0

#410 Pancake

Pancake

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:59 AM

That's better. Thanks.

I'm not so sure about the money argument. If money really was a problem, we'd continue the tiered readiness, have cut programs already, closed facilities, cut services,etc...

This whole budget mess is about leveraging. No matter how much $$ DoD gets, all services are going to get a cut. The real challenge is convincing Congress how much of a cut we should get, driven by need. I think all DoD agrees the F-35 isn't going to fill the gap (sts) left by the Hog going away. The absence seems to be a glaring need that attracts DoD $$. The alternative is pouring more money into the A-10 at the detriment of future CAS capability. I believe the second alternative of abandoning a CAS platform is considered intolerable by the USA and USMC.

As far as Fifth Gen, some stealth would be useful in a denied environment. At least a smaller radar cross section than the A-10. Speed, better G, better ECM, better data link capability (ability to talk to F-22 and F-35), appropriate busses for future weapons, etc... Then consider that passive a passive detection network that identifies and counters contemporary and emerging threats (think tactical SA-teens/twenties), identifies movers, collects ECM data, etc., eliminates the need for AWACS, JSTARS, and likely a bunch of stuff that I'm not even aware of. These are a just a few things that the 35 year-old platform lacks in what the AF leadership considers the future AOB/GOB. In regards to $$, what saves more, eliminating the A-10 and dealing with the repercussions of degraded CAS among the sister services, or getting a new CAS platform that eliminates the need for a host of support aircraft (E-3, E-8, HARMs, A/A cap, MQ-1/MQ-9, etc...)? Now factor in the reduction in associated reduced personnel costs...

The AF is aware of its customers' needs. Heck, we did convoys in Iraq to justify our existence (stupid). I'm pretty sure the AF leadership realizes if we fail to provide A-10 level CAS, we're damaging our relevance. The AF is notorious radically responding to these budget "crises" in order to achieve their true objectives.

We may not see a dedicated CAS platform in the inventory for a few years, but I suspect something is on the way/in development. This Cessna thing, which again, I heard about in 2009, might be it, especially if the cost is low and acquisition process is simplified.

We didn't need smartphones until Apple told us we did. They created demand. By mothballing the A-10, the AF is creating demand for a Fifth-Gen CAS platform to replace the current 35 year-old jet. Simply saying the A-10 is old doesn't drive need. Forcing the issue by getting rid of the plane does, however.

The money is out there. We will eventually buy new jets beyond F-35 and KC-46. The Air Force leadership might actually be thinking 15-20 years ahead of themselves by driving the need for a new CAS jet now, rather than continuing to fly the Hog for another 15 years.

Or they might be really short-sighted idiots...

BTW... This sums up just about every BO.net discussion. Thanks for keeping it real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MixNh9L7G5M

Edited by Pancake, 21 September 2013 - 12:05 PM.

  • 0

#411 Danny Noonin

Danny Noonin

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,030 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2013 - 11:41 AM

The money is out there.


You're so uninformed I actually feel bad for you.
  • 0

#412 Pancake

Pancake

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 11:54 AM

You're so uninformed I actually feel bad for you.


Touche, man. You got me.

When I stop flying at the rate I fly and lose the ability to earn a 20-year AD retirement, I'll believe we're out of money.

Edited by Pancake, 21 September 2013 - 12:04 PM.

  • 0

#413 backseatdriver

backseatdriver

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:38 PM

As far as Fifth Gen, some stealth would be useful in a denied environment. At least a smaller radar cross section than the A-10. Speed, better G, better ECM, better data link capability (ability to talk to F-22 and F-35), appropriate busses for future weapons, etc... Then consider that passive a passive detection network that identifies and counters contemporary and emerging threats (think tactical SA-teens/twenties), identifies movers, collects ECM data, etc., eliminates the need for AWACS, JSTARS, and likely a bunch of stuff that I'm not even aware of. These are a just a few things that the 35 year-old platform lacks in what the AF leadership considers the future AOB/GOB. In regards to $$, what saves more, eliminating the A-10 and dealing with the repercussions of degraded CAS among the sister services, or getting a new CAS platform that eliminates the need for a host of support aircraft (E-3, E-8, HARMs, A/A cap, MQ-1/MQ-9, etc...)? Now factor in the reduction in associated reduced personnel costs...


Dude. Do you really think HARMs only exist to protect A-10s? Or that we only do OCA/DCA caps for a CAS fight? Or that AWACS & JSTARS only exist to support A-10s and said CAS fight?

You have some 3-1 reading to do my friend. Take a bottle of whiskey to your nearest Weapons Officer immediately and have a talk (mostly you listening) about how the AF fights a full up war.
  • 1
Rage against the machine one reflective belt at a time.

#414 disgruntledemployee

disgruntledemployee

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 03:17 PM

AF: We're retiring the A-10.
Army: We'll take em.
Marines: We'll pay to take em.
AF: But we have this new F-35.
Marines and Army, at the same time: does it have a 30mm that strikes fear into the gut of our enemy? Jinx, you owe me a beer.
AF: no, but it has this new fancy deal where..
Marines: shut it.

And there you have it folks. The man on the ground has a love affair with the Hog. So much so that I can actually see them trying to take over flying the plane. I wonder why?

Out
  • 0

#415 Danny Noonin

Danny Noonin

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,030 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2013 - 04:54 PM

The man on the ground has a love affair with the Hog. So much so that I can actually see them trying to take over flying the plane. I wonder why?

One little problem with your theory...if we dont have the money, where are they going to come up with the money?

  • 1

#416 backseatdriver

backseatdriver

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2013 - 08:41 PM


And there you have it folks. The man on the ground has a love affair with the Hog. So much so that I can actually see them trying to take over flying the plane. I wonder why?


This is not an Army/Marine fight. The A-10 is being sacrificed on the altar of the F-35 and KC-46. Period.

The Army/Navy/Marines are making the same sacrifices. When push comes to shove, those services are not going to sacrifice combat capability in the form of Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines in order to take on the responsibility of paying for the training, maintenance, and fielding of the A-10 in their service.

It is "circle the wagons" time my friends.
  • 0
Rage against the machine one reflective belt at a time.

#417 disgruntledemployee

disgruntledemployee

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 08:43 PM

One little problem with your theory...if we dont have the money, where are they going to come up with the money?


$500 toilet seats. Want one?

Out
  • 0

#418 Pancake

Pancake

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 03:04 PM

Dude. Do you really think HARMs only exist to protect A-10s? Or that we only do OCA/DCA caps for a CAS fight? Or that AWACS & JSTARS only exist to support A-10s and said CAS fight?

You have some 3-1 reading to do my friend. Take a bottle of whiskey to your nearest Weapons Officer immediately and have a talk (mostly you listening) about how the AF fights a full up war.


Talk about ignoring context and the rest of the paragraph! Geez, man... Strategic bolding, though. Good job!

So you're saying that improved data link, stealth (F-22/F-35/B-2), improved passive sensing and radars, other stuff that we won't talk about here don't eliminate the need for a lot of that 1980s technology (AWACS, SEAD/DEAD, JSTARS, etc...) for AF assets of all types and missions? Then what's the point of spending all the $$ on new tech? Why not keep keep all the Eagles, Hogs, Block 30 Vipers and bring back the Phantoms and Aardvarks? We need to justify the existence of all those 707 airframes!

The Air Force is trying to fundamentally change the way we fight wars through technology. Remember reading about computers that were the size of your living room but had less power than a calculator, and how you have more processing power in your iPhone than what we had to put dudes on the moon? If 5th Gen fighter systems can eliminate the need for a swath of support assets, to include the associated personnel, I think we can maintain (or expand) our capability at a lower long-term cost with a smaller footprint.

But you're right, we should keep doing things the same old way... I better get back to the vault!

Edited by Pancake, 22 September 2013 - 04:09 PM.

  • 0

#419 matmacwc

matmacwc

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,016 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:KXTA

Posted 22 September 2013 - 03:12 PM

I thinks better argument is about fighting today's war versus tomorrow's war. The past 10 years have been so CAS centric that's all most AF war fighters tend to think about. Sure, some wars may break down into that eventually, but definitely not at first and possibly not at all.
  • 0
Gubmint do take a bite, don't she?

#420 Pancake

Pancake

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 03:30 PM

One little problem with your theory...if we dont have the money, where are they going to come up with the money?


We don't have the money? Because leadership says so? My buddy at WPAFB recently had leadership give him $750K of money they "just found" to work on a cancelled project! You don't see any politicking here? Cutting the Thunderbirds and Blue Angles, and implementing tiered readiness (only to turn flying hours back on when we scare Congress into giving us more money) is the best we can do to thwart this budget "crisis?" IMO, this whole budget thing is just another manufactured crisis that we've all wisely swallowed (sts), hook, line and sinker (to create this "sky is falling" mentality, essentially a perpetual crisis). Do we need to curb reckless spending, a broken acquisition system, and restructure the force? Absolutely! But we have money for things we need as long as we stop spending money on things we don't need/don't contribute to equipping, training, and fighting.

What doesn't make sense to me is the idea many share on this board that the F-35 and KC-46 are the last two airplanes we'll ever buy. The Air Force will continue to develop and acquire new platforms, despite today's budget woes. If you consider the backlash the AF received in Iraq for "not doing their part," how valuable CAS is to promoting the AF's relevance, and the best way to solicit congressional funding (by creating another "crisis" with a service-wide absence of a dedicated CAS platform) for future projects, all of this appears to me as Politicking 101. Sure, the A-10 may be cut in in the next couple of years, probably in the name of F-35/KC-46. But I think it's naive to believe the AF doesn't have tertiary plans for a dedicated CAS airplane that can integrate/contribute in modern/future battlespace.

As an A-10 guy, I don't want to see the jet go. I love it and its mission(s), helping the guys on the ground, and want to fly it until I quit the AF. But if cutting the A-10 now leads to a modern dedicated CAS platform, I am for that (despite the expense of no 30mm and loss of organic CAS expertise) versus flying the A-10 for another 15 years with nothing on the horizon to replace it. Sort of a "Peace Dividend." The current environment doesn't allow bridging, and with the war weariness of this country, military planners and leaders are literally betting their careers/reputations/potentially the lives of 19 year-old "Joes" that we won't fight a ground war for the next 5-10 years, which allows them to justify sacrificing the A-10 now.

Leadership will sell the elimination of the A-10 however they need to. I don't believe for a second that Welsh and Goldfein think there's no need for a dedicated CAS airplane. However, getting rid of the A-10 might be what they need to do today in order to get a better A-10 replacement tomorrow (not literally "tomorrow," because as we all know, there is no money...*sarcasm*).

Edited by Pancake, 22 September 2013 - 05:04 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users