It's easier to hold a sustained turn with a better engine. That's what makes the F-16 better than the MiG, as the MiG can pull a faster instantaneous turn but will sacrifice a lot of AoA to do so, whereas the F-16 can keep turning longer with a smaller radius. It's true, the lighter wing loading makes the earlier versions a bit lighter, but the trade between those and having a worse engine don't make up for each other. I will agree, an earlier version with PW 220 would outturn a newer F-16, but the earliest non-upgraded ones do work at a disadvantage in this regard.Cascadeland wrote:You are arguing from the aspect of "speed" advantage only. There is more to maneuverability and dogfighting than this. Low wing loading is among the most decisive factors when it comes to advantages for dogfighting. The F16A had a lower wingloading than the C, for example.
...It really hasn't. The core concepts remain the same, despite new technologies and increasing complexity. plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Take US war games at JRTC at Fort Polk Louisiana. Since the US military, especially Stryker Brigades, are anticipating the odds of fighting outnumbered, the value of a close ground support aircraft is more valuable than ever. Laser guided bombs and missiles are very expensive (over 100K a piece), and their "accuracy", despite the military industrial complex and the media throwing out their usual line of BULLSHIT, is very questionable at best; especially when compared to the 30mm gun flying slow. Thats not even getting into the fact that you WILL produce friendly casualties with bombs and missiles, rather than the gun. This is huge.
Since the A10 is a comparatively less expensive aircraft than its contemporaries, it has a inevitably higher sortie rate, which is useful for supporting troops on the ground. The sortie rate of the F35 that is supposed to replace it, is higher than the F16s and F15s. This is about as contradictory as it can get.
Now lets go to the battlefield: Why is it so hard to understand why an aircraft with a slower speed, significantly shorter turn radius (meaning it turns faster), high sortie rate, and longer loiter time than F15s and F16s would be superior to supporting troops on the ground?
...I couldn't give a fiddler's fuck less about whether the Air Force agrees with me or not. The force that favored the abysmal failure that was the F105, the F111, and others claiming they were supposed to be paradigm changers doesn't have a lot of fucking credibility in my book. That and how corrupt they are with their relations with contractors producing expensive aircraft.
The Air Force is in it for the revolving door that leads to employment in the private defense establishment. Nothing more.
I'd suggest your thinking may be a tad bit outdated...No it doesn't. You dont understand what CAS is then. You know what instruments you need!? night vision and a radio. And direct line of sight. You dont need high tech 100k dollar missiles and laser guided bombs and guidance modules. YOU DONT.
Its CAS, which is to provide line of sight fires on enemy troops messing with your comrades. Not Air Interception with BVR missiles.
We can debate the Tucano, but I personally don't see much of any place for classical prop planes on the modern battlefield, but that's just my own opinion.There are better aircraft for COIN honestly, like COIN aircraft (that is a designation, yes), which is different than CAS. Similar, but different too. Like propped aircraft, which are even less expensive than the A10. The Tucano comes to mind, and there is one from South Africa whose name eludes me and many, many others.
Let's look at Horner's standpoint on A-10s in ODS:Its perfect considering just how effective it is and how cheap 30mm ammunition is. Anything smaller is less effective (say 12.7mm or even 20mm) historically speaking against hard cover. APFSDS isn't the only ammunition fired by the A10. There is High Explosive, Incendiary, which was an approximate 4m kill radius for each shot.
The gun can place 80% of its shots within a 40-foot diameter circle from 4,000 feet while in flight. That is perfect for killing technicals and insurgent machine gun emplacemens in the mountains of the Pakita provence for example. Or providing danger close air support to infantrymen caught in an ambush or in need of busting heavy enemy forces within areas where collateral damage is a risk.
People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.
Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.
Those people . . . were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle-- and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.
Since the line was discontinued, [the A-10's champions] want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.
Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.
It is obsolete. CAS evolves, and the A-10 is a child of the past until people invent guided rounds for 30mm or something. Also, note that the primary vehicle killer for the A-10 was the Maverick. Not the gun.Not even close. Close Air Support will never die because there is no such thing in hypotheticals right now that renders this concept obsolete. Missiles and bombs aren't perfect instruments (far from it), and their very obvious flaws make them complements, not replacements, to close air support. http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013 ... -replaced/
The A10 was also the most successful aircraft in ODS, in proportion to the number of successful sorties to losses ratio, number of sorties in general, and the amount of enemy vehicles slagged.
I am comparing the faults of the Comanche with the faults of the A-10. They're both exceptional designs, but were meant for a day and age long past.The Commanche was intended to be a scout helicopter, not a CAS Aircraft. Apples and Oranges, friend. For the sake of your argument, you also dont want to bring up attack helicopters vs CAS aircraft because it does NOT favor attack helicopters.
Others have already provided enough explanation to this point.This has been constantly quoted by Air Force commanders favoring fast moving fighters and bombers, but has been completely disproven by recent experience since ODS. Funny how the opinions of JTAC and the guys on the ground is the exact opposite.
And yes, our adversaries' armaments, particularly SAMs and AAA have evolved considerably since the A10s introduction, although, those same vulnerabilities of the A10 also apply to every other fixed wing aircraft that undertake ground support operations. This has also been proven true, with fast fighter bombers being shot down too.
Funny you should mention MANPADS http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/a-10 ... ard-bound/
The loiter time is only necessary if you can't wipe out the enemy in one pass. Aircraft that will replace the A-10 will do the job better, differently.The conditions of the terrain aforementioned by you above are precisely why the A10 is more effective for close air support than faster fighters that turn very wide and have high speeds. Like I said before, the short turn radius, long loiter time, and slow speed allows the A10 to fly below 5,000 feet and maneuver throughout rugged terrain and below cloud cover during incliment weather. This was the case in the Balkans, which is why the A10 was allowed to fly in all conditions in the Balkans, unlike every other aircraft in NATOs inventory.
So you want the rest of the Air Force to babysit A-10s so they can be useful instead of hunting other targets?High altitude is frequently argued by the Air Force, but this is even less true given advancements in SAM technology ironically. Aircraft operating at high altitudes become more vulnerable, not less so. The risk of SAMs and radar-guided AAA are the reason for adequate SEAD and EW, which compliment other fighter bombers, so why wouldn't they be able to feasibly compliment A10s?
A good CAS plane needs survivability, payload, and the power to choose how the engagement will take place. The A-10 only has a payload advantage, as its missile defeat systems aren't exactly the best in the world.This is also untrue and history doesn't lie, unless it is revised by errors and falsehoods. For the reasons above, which ive repeated five times now, a good CAS plane doesn't need to be supercruise capable and stealth or anything else. It needs to have a very high turn radius, slow speed, and long loiter time. Most importantly, it needs to be COST EFFECTIVE with a high sortie rate so that it is actually there when it is needed.
Weve seen the failures of using multirole fighter bombers for CAS. They're not accurate and have resulted in fratricide and/or collateral damage at worst, and utter impotence, at best. The recent incident with Special Operations and a B1 being used for CAS are perfect examples of this.
Again, new times brings new tools.
