Air Force begins A-10 replacement study

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: JIMC5499
Dust off the OV-10 design. Build new airframes, taking advantage of new materials. Update the avionics to the new standard data bus. Sell them to both the Air Force and the Marines. Lightly loaded OV-10's can take off from the Marines helicopter carriers and can operate from short rough fields.
Problem solved.

Just as an aside, did you know a couple of Broncos were still being used by SOF until very recently? Maybe when they finish the eval, you'll get your wish

Doing a tryout now against ISIS. Navy Airdale with NFO in the back seat.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: pteridine
Doing a tryout now against ISIS. Navy Airdale with NFO in the back seat.

www.cnn.com...

Brace yourself, but ..... CNN has got it wrong.

They are done with the eval deployment and back home. They are just tallying up the "score".


*Sadly, despite being a fan of both aircraft, I don't think they're going to bring them back, for the same reason that I don't think they'll keep/refurb A-10's. Trying to get away from multiplatforms and streamline the services. But there are things an OV-10 can do that even an A-10 can't. SO maybe they find the motivation to bring them back.

a reply to: RadioRobert

What? CNN got something wrong?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sorry. Hopefully you were sitting down...

a reply to: RadioRobert

Fortunately I was.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: pteridine
Doing a tryout now against ISIS. Navy Airdale with NFO in the back seat.

www.cnn.com...

Brace yourself, but ..... CNN has got it wrong.

They are done with the eval deployment and back home. They are just tallying up the "score".


*Sadly, despite being a fan of both aircraft, I don't think they're going to bring them back, for the same reason that I don't think they'll keep/refurb A-10's. Trying to get away from multiplatforms and streamline the services. But there are things an OV-10 can do that even an A-10 can't. SO maybe they find the motivation to bring them back.

The "score" will be adjusted to provide the desired answer. When the AF wanted to retire the A-10 and the Army and Marines said that they'd fly them, a turf discussion ensued. Hence, the A-10 is still in the AF inventory. The conclusion that will probably be reached is that the needed aircraft will be new and cool. The F-35 is designed to destroy enemy air defenses from standoff distances using stealth technologies. Stealth doesn't help in a guerilla warfare conflict so the F-35 is not the solution. The F-35 is expensive to build and operate and flying ground support is not a good use of its capabilities while putting the aircraft and pilot at risk. The OV-10 can loiter and direct artillery or naval gunfire, attack with gunfire or any combination of missiles. It flies slow enough for ground support and the cockpit provides good visibility. What should happen, and probably won't, is that the funding for A-10 replacement and its operation should go to the services with ground troops.
I'm voting for an updated Spad [A-1 Skyraider] as a tough ground attack plane capable of carrying large amounts of ordnance.

a reply to: pteridine

The Army won't take it unless the Air Force pays for it. They're having their own money problems, and are about to accelerate the light scout FVL program, because they got rid of their scouts to save money, then found out that didn't work so well.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

The Army won't take it unless the Air Force pays for it. They're having their own money problems, and are about to accelerate the light scout FVL program, because they got rid of their scouts to save money, then found out that didn't work so well.

The Army/Navy/Marines will take it when the funding is redirected from the AF and sent to them, so in a sense the AF will pay for it. DoD is all about turf, so this will be resisted by the AF, even though they may have the least interest in the outcomes on the ground. I look on this as the AF trying to keep themselves in as many aspects of the fight that they possibly can to prevent being upstaged by ground pounders. Air superiority and tactical strikes on GPS designated or laser illuminated targets are not enough; they do not want the Army to have armed, fixed-wing aircraft of any type as they fear mission creep, especially in the conflicts where the opposition has no air assets to suppress. Look at the game they played with the OV-1 when the AF wanted its weapons removed for AF job security. With ISIS, they don't need stealthy aircraft or Mach 2+ capability; they need P-47 Thunderbolts with 8 x.50 cal mg, bombs and rockets.
A fully armed OV-1 variant with a modern sensor suite might be the Army[Marine] scout/ground support plane until the AF figures out what cool, expensive platform they want next.

a reply to: pteridine

Right now there's no money to take away from anyone and shuffle anywhere. They're barely paying for the upgrades that they have to have now, let alone for a new tacair aircraft, for anyone.

The A-29 is the answer. It's already won a competition a few years ago aimed at replacing the A-10 before it was mothballed because of political reasons. It provides the majority of the capabilities of the A-10 at a fraction of the cost. Not to mention that the US is already flying them while they train pilots from the Afghani Air Force.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

Right now there's no money to take away from anyone and shuffle anywhere. They're barely paying for the upgrades that they have to have now, let alone for a new tacair aircraft, for anyone.

It is likely that the AF was just playing poker with the A-10 retirement plan as a way of extracting funding from Congress, which they did. While the deluded upper echelons of the AF believe their own press and are reluctant close support providers, the pilots who fly the A-10 like the plane and the missions. While a replacement for the A-10 would politically go to the AF, I contend that the AF should not be involved in such and funding should be reprogrammed to a joint Army/Navy/MARCOR team. Navy/MARCOR have some additional carrier based needs with landing gear/tailhook, nose gear, folding wings, and maybe zero-zero seats and, while the Army may not need them, designing for such is prudent for easy interservice transfers and common maintenance and training. Off-the-shelf components, including modified airframes, engines, and sensor suites would certainly cut down on capital and operating costs. Modularization and ease of maintenance would be prime considerations to allow some swap out of sensor/weapons suites and ready repair-by-replacement by field personnel. To work on the Harrier engine, all one had to do was start by removing a wing or two, a bit of a pain. The F4 by-the-book engine replacement was a 4 hour job that could be done in 20 minutes off the book [not counting balancing engines] when time was tight. In an operational theater, time is always tight.
Just my $0.02

a reply to: pteridine

I'd love to see the A-10 AND the OV-10 stay indefinitely like the BUFFs. Where is the money coming from? The whole "AF hates the A-10" is a farce. You have to decide which capabilities are essential and which are nice to have. There is no definitive answer, and the talking points are all too simplistic.

originally posted by: justwanttofly
The A-29 is the answer. It's already won a competition a few years ago aimed at replacing the A-10 before it was mothballed because of political reasons. It provides the majority of the capabilities of the A-10 at a fraction of the cost. Not to mention that the US is already flying them while they train pilots from the Afghani Air Force.

It may be a good answer but those political reasons tend to over-ride good answers. An argument that is always used has to do with self sufficiency; the Canadian engine is no good if we go to war with Canada and the Brazilian airframe is no good if we go to war with Brazil. The idea is to feed US companies with big defense dollars. We have some cannons and missiles from NATO allies but aircraft are home grown and then exported to friendlies to offset development and production costs.
About the only way I could see the A-29 would be a joint development/production with a US company/companies. Money is split up among defense contractors to maintain redundant capabilities and it is understood that one company won't win all competitions. Airframe Brazil+US, engines US, sensors/weapons systems definitely US.

a reply to: pteridine

It's being co-manufactured with Sierra Nevada Corporation with some other smaller US companies providing hardware as far as I know.

a reply to: Zaphod58

... while the F-35 would be superb in the role, it would be far too expensive to operate in a permissive environment.

Just singling this critter out, and based solely on my ever so humble opinion, the F-35 is the next Bell P-39 Airacobra; much time and effort offered but the product was just not what it was designed to be.

Of course, the manufacturer wants to sell as many as possible but... smart air forces are going to see this rubber duck for what it is.

///

a reply to: redoubt

The sensor capability of the F-35 makes it well worth having in your pocket. It's the only aircraft that will be able to detect certain threats, for years to come yet.

originally posted by: redoubt
Just singling this critter out, and based solely on my ever so humble opinion, the F-35 is the next Bell P-39 Airacobra; much time and effort offered but the product was just not what it was designed to be.

To be fair to the P-39, it was a pretty decent machine below 12,000' and served on all fronts. It just had no power above 15,000' (nor would any design without a turbo-charger).

The F-35 will be fine. It just won't be an air-superiority fighter which makes sense, because it wasn't designed to be.

The USAF budget needs augmented funding for aerospace operations,it needs to hand off the CAS mission to the ground forces and THEIR funding requires augmenting to do that. Once we get rid of Homeland security and TSA,DEA, and the IRS,they can use THAT money.

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: pteridine

It's being co-manufactured with Sierra Nevada Corporation with some other smaller US companies providing hardware as far as I know.

Thanks for the update; that is what would be expected. The total dollar value is too small for the big boys to worry about.

@redoubt-- As I remember, the Soviets loved the P39 in anti-tank roles because of the 37mm cannon; it was the A10 of it's day.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

So here's a patently insane idea I just had to bring CAS capabilities to the US Army:

Bring back the XFV/XFY concept of a tail-sitting turboprop aircraft.

I know that right now you are probably thinking "put down the meth pipe, Barns, recovery begins today", but hear me out, I think this could almost work.

Firstly: Improvements in turboprop powerplants and the ever-decreasing size of PGMs are working together and mean that power/weight ratios have never been better.

Secondly: Fly-by-wire, FADEC, augmented vision, and unmanned aircraft technologies now mean that the one-time deal-breaker for tail-sitters, the tail-first landing, can now be semi(or mostly)-automated like the vertical landing sequence of the F-35B, i.e. "pick a spot and it lands itself" instead of "look back over your shoulder, knuckles white, sweat beading your brow as you try to land your 5,000hp eggbeater ass-first using Eisenhower-era flight controls".

Thirdly: If short/rough field ability is GOOD for permissive CAS and COIN platforms, then NO-field capability should be GREAT!!!

And fourthly: Zero-zero ejection seat technology has come a long, long way over the past six decades. That should be something to keep in mind once you realize the hard way that your gearbox just leaked it's last quart of oil as you're pointed nose up 30 feet above your landing pad. Just pray as you rocket head-first and parallel to the ground at 200 miles per hour that your LZ isn't too closely encroached by tall buildings, trees, rock walls, power lines, etc... That's all...

But seriously, you could probably build one hell of a tail-sitting craft around an Allison T406, one that would probably rival an OV-10 in terms of payload and an A-10 in terms of speed, while having the forward-basing logistical footprint of a Blackhawk.

All I'm saying is that would make one hell of an infantry support bird...