Originally posted by JA Boomer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Characteristics of a new-design CAS platform
Collapse
X
-
Sometimes you can't put munitions on target. Sometimes you need the bad guys to know that there are aircraft hunting them, so they stop firing and allow you freedom to maneuver. Sometimes you can't clearly identify where the bad guys are even located, so you need someone to slowly hang out and hunt them with you.
CAS is a lot more than munitions on target. We can't always destroy them. Sometimes suppression is the next best thing. A low and slow aircraft, with a gun doing some 'checks' on various ridgelines, can really mean a great deal to those souls on the ground.
Again, I didn't say we didn't need F22s. Maybe we don't need so many F35s, and just an extension of something else, like the AT-6 version:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...-light-attack/
Not sure, Gun Grape, why you see that as a no-go from the start.
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrae...4_Super_Tucano
This keeps operational costs low, something a T-38 or T-45 attack variant would likely not do.
Tankersteve
Comment
-
Here's the thing though, would you rather have a small number of the above show up a small percentage of the time having exactly what you need in that minority instances where such things are needed, or would you rather have every fix wing asset that shows up over the battlefield be able to do what you need it to do better (if not quite as perfectly as your ideal platform)?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tankersteve View PostAgain, I didn't say we didn't need F22s. Maybe we don't need so many F35s, and just an extension of something else, like the AT-6 version:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...-light-attack/
Not sure, Gun Grape, why you see that as a no-go from the start.
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrae...4_Super_Tucano
Tankersteve
They also would be more vulnerable to manpads and AAA.
And this is important from a TACP POV. You have to utilize what the bird has, not what you would like it to have.
Why do we want to revisit the OV-10 experience?Last edited by Gun Grape; 22 Sep 15,, 01:13.
Comment
-
Citanon,
I'm not sure I completely follow your scenario. I don't have the time to crunch the numbers. If we reduced the number of F35 by X (perhaps 5%), and acknowledge the penalty in per aircraft price, what would that buy us in smaller aircraft? In procurement, operations, maintenance, etc, but minus the cost saving of running a lower tech, cheaper to fly aircraft, day in and day out, over permissible airspace in our routinely engaged environments, versus a high-performance aircraft that theoretically would have to fly more sorties to have the same time in support, while burning more fuel, and requiring more expensive maintenance? Wearing out aircraft hours on very expensive birds that should be reserved for their real mission?
Maybe the numbers don't work. Maybe I am underestimating the cost of F35 procurement and operations over time, and overestimating the difference in cost for a converted turboprop trainer. I honestly don't know enough to run the numbers.
Tankersteve
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tankersteve View PostCitanon,
I'm not sure I completely follow your scenario. I don't have the time to crunch the numbers. If we reduced the number of F35 by X (perhaps 5%), and acknowledge the penalty in per aircraft price, what would that buy us in smaller aircraft? In procurement, operations, maintenance, etc, but minus the cost saving of running a lower tech, cheaper to fly aircraft, day in and day out, over permissible airspace in our routinely engaged environments, versus a high-performance aircraft that theoretically would have to fly more sorties to have the same time in support, while burning more fuel, and requiring more expensive maintenance? Wearing out aircraft hours on very expensive birds that should be reserved for their real mission?
Maybe the numbers don't work. Maybe I am underestimating the cost of F35 procurement and operations over time, and overestimating the difference in cost for a converted turboprop trainer. I honestly don't know enough to run the numbers.
Tankersteve
Supposition 1: You can't buy enough of that aircraft to take over most of the missions. By the time you put enough things on a Super Tucano to make it do what we'd expect a modern CAS platform to do, how much would each plane cost? It cost $15 million in Brizilian AF guise but that plane doesn't have the equipment needed to run USAF wares and is designed for REALLY permissible environments. By the time you put in enough equipment and upgrades to make it USAF useful at least some of the time, you are going to get to perhaps $25 million, $35 million? F35s will soon be running at $80 FY2019 per plane, so roughly 2x to 3x as expensive to a fully equipped light attack aircraft. Say that you lose 1% of your savings to cost increase and 1% to logistics, you end up with, optimistically, 200-300 aircraft.
Supposition 2: Getting the planes into the fight will be a challenge. They are not F35s but they are not helicopters either. They'll need some sort of an air field, which needs to be secured and supplied. They will need the right permissive environment, at a time when environments are getting less permissive. They'll also need a willingness to commit to those types of preparations and operations at a time where the policy is to get away from large scale ground commitments. And, they need to be closer to the fight since they are much slower than jets in getting to the fight.
With that, here are my 3 points:
A. Savings aren't as great as one would suppose: When you consider the small numbers and problems outlined above, chances are, most of the time, most of your support will still come from the F35s of the world until you can move the light attack aircraft to a place where they can join the fight at a high sortie rate. So, if you look at our overall savings, its a percentage of that small number of missions where the light attack aircraft are in use. In reality, this means that even if you are saving 50% per sortie, you are only saving that 50% on 5% or 10% of your sorties, which ends up being a 5% or 2.5% savings on your overall operations. Further more, savings on the operations side of the budget aren't as important to the DoD as peace time upkeep because war time operations are funded by a separate budget that is not under the same type of pressure as the peace time budget.
B. Planes are not as useful as they seem: The planes might be just perfect for what the ground commander want them for, some of the time, but because you can only get a few of them and they have limited capabilities and range/speed, most of the time the plane that shows up to help will not be the light attack plane. So, you are really just buying the plane so that some of the time, when you want it, a plane will show up that might be just perfect for that particular mission you had in mind. However, most of the time, that plane won't show, and you are stuck with these other planes that aren't as good. Wouldn't it be better, then, to take the pot of money you'd spend on that light attack plane, and instead spend it on things that can be put onto every fast mover so that what ever plane shows up, it can always do the things you want? For example, on the British F35s, they will have the Brimstone missile which is about as good as a Hellfire for support of ground forces in close contact. Would you rather get a light attack plane, or would you rather put the money to work equipping US jets with a Brimstone like missile? Which brings us to the next point.
C. Under an austere budget environment, we have to make some hard choices. Sure we'd like to get everything but we can't. If you reduce the F35 buy by 5%, you are going to lose a bit of that savings right up front to the cost of the airframes going up, and the cost of maintaining an extra logistics line for the new plane. It also means more planes that can't show up to fight when you really NEED them to prevail, or it means not equipping them to the level that you'd want to get really good CAS out of them. Even if you have some numbers of light attack aircraft, the F35, by nature of being the most numerous platform and the most survivable, and much longer ranged and faster, and more fitting with the current basing strategies, is going to be the one that shows up 95% of the time. It just seems that money is probably better spent to equip it and other fast movers better for CAS than to get a CAS specialized platform.
Lastly, I think it's illustrative to consider a light attack craft against the current work horse in CAS - the B1:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...l=1#post995688
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...l=1#post995584
Would you rather have have Super Tucanoes or use that money boost the capabilities of B1s?Last edited by citanon; 22 Sep 15,, 02:56.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostNeed low speed or long loiter times or just a cheap bomb truck? Use a drone.
Need long loiter time or deep magazines? Use a bomber.
Need fast response times or penetration? Use fighters.
Need fast response times or cheap ordinance? Use guided artillery.
Need long times on target or organic assets? Use attack helicopters.
There is no direct 1 to 1 replacement for the A-10, but its capabilities in low intensity environments are covered by other platforms in the inventory that offer significantly more utility against near/peer adversaries.
Replace it with drones? I don't think we're there yet.
All I am trying to say, is that the A-10 shines in a very specific mission set. CAS, with TIC, in a low intensity environment. Why can't anyone seem to just agree with that? Can other assets perform CAS, yes. Can other aircraft succeed at CAS, yes. Can anything right now do that one specific thing better than the A-10, no.
Whether it makes sense to keep a one trick pony in the stable is another matter.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tankersteve View PostGun Grape,
6 hard points. 2 guns, 2 bombs, 2 free to save weight.
How long does it have to stay around, dropping multiple pieces of ordnance?
The A-10 has long loiter time because the standard loadout in Afghanistan was 14 WP rockets (2 LUU-17 pods) 4 Mk-84 bombs, 2 Mavericks and the gun.
In one of its many configurations the F-16C can carry 25 MK-82 bombs (500lb dumb bomb) or 6 Mavericks. Cost wise you have to look at how many of your low cost attack aircraft sorties will equal that 1 F-16. How many of the 6 hardpoints would be wired for Mav, GPS and LGBs. What are the weight restrictions for the wing ans each hardpoint.
That old Cost/benefit analysis
Again, we are not flying this in an environment with higher threats from Manpads or AAA. If we are flying AH-XX, then we could fly this.
Tankersteve
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostMust be nice to be Americans. The rest of us still rely on tube gun fire support.
Don't get me started
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JA Boomer View PostJust curious what you are referring to? The fact that the USAF didn't bring the OV-10 to fight in Desert Storm because it deemed them too vulnerable?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostWe are lazy. CAS is for when you don't bring enough Artillery to the fight. Or your to lazy to take it out of your firebase to cover your troops.
Don't get me started
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostWe are lazy. CAS is for when you don't bring enough Artillery to the fight. Or your to lazy to take it out of your firebase to cover your troops.
Don't get me startedChimo
Comment
Comment