Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Phanagoria]

And what difference does it make?

By concepts of scales and price comparisons, there's a point at which one version is more expensive than the alternative. All my point is that the A-10 is cheaper, and at some unknown scale, the A-10 will be cheaper.

The problem is that your analysis is far too narrow. It's not as simple as some algebraic equation where Total cost = 500x + 600y like you're implying. In order to take those hours from the multirole and put them on the A-10, you first have to completely refurbish the A-10 fleet or replace it with new aircraft because these ones are getting old and that's why they're being retired now as opposed to ten years ago when they had some life left. You still have to run an extra branch of logistical and training support tailored to the A-10. You have to add more administration roles seeing as your creating more military units instead of tapping into ones that already exist. My first explanation was pretty clear about this, I thought. I'm not sure you what you didn't understand.

Yeah, because we all know multiroles aren't logistically intensive or anything. I can buy more multiroles at 40 million each that will last 5000 hours, or I can buy A-10s at 20 million each that will last 8000+. Obviously there's a crossover point at which one crosses over the other on the graph.

You like the flexibility of multirole aircraft and are willing to pay for it. Great. That doesn't mean that it's unfeasible for the cheaper aircraft to *gasp* be cheaper. Otherwise the Su-25 and A-10 would never have been invented to begin with.

Both aircraft were the product of the early 1970s Cold War tensions. At the time of development, MANPADS were not a thing. Common air defenses were mostly still AAA, backed up by simple SAMs like the S-125 and MIM-23. They were designed for high loiter times (i.e. low speed), and low altitude work. Facing modern air defenses, a multirole from the same era, like the F-16 is way more survivable thanks to it's improved top speed, acceleration, climb rate, etc. It also is capable of filling a lot more roles, like SEAD, air superiority, etc. Because the A-10 can't fill those roles, you might as well add a multirole aircraft for either SEAD or escort duties for every 3 or 4 A-10s you get in your calculation. And that skews the cost benefit analysis further away from the A-10.

[Cote dSoleil]

Except that you don't graph capabilities. A dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10 would be worthwhile if the target has zero air defense capability and yet still has some kind of ground capability to warrant such an aircraft. It should have sufficient numbers of semi-advanced ground vehicles that warrant the use of PGMs and the internal cannon, but not advanced enough to have any dangerous SHORAD capability. If it lacks even these basic vehicles, then you're better off using a combination of drones and perhaps light armed trainers.

This is an incredibly specific set of circumstances that the US was fortunate to find in Iraq, but even in the case of the first Gulf War, took a prolonged air campaign to fully suppress the Iraqi air defenses in their more protected areas. If you can guarantee that you will be fighting these wars often, then you might be able to justify it, but even then the relative utility must be compared to the cost of a combination of helicopters, drones, multiroles, and armed trainers.

The A-10 and Su-25 were designed to bring capabilities that at the time were considered useful yet not provided by any existing platform. Namely cannon fire, which is what really separates them from a multirole. But this is no longer as useful as it once was. Against any reasonable parity foe, standoff PGMs are going to be the order of the day, and survivability is going to mean the ability to rapidly penetrate and escape or deal with enemy fighter cover, rather than being able to take a few hits from ground fire.

see prior edit

I'm not saying that an A-10 is a more capable aircraft. I'm not saying that it's a better aircraft.

The multirole is more capable. Duh. You think the cost is worth it. I get it. The A-10 is cheaper. They aren't mutually exclusive.

and with that, I'm gonna bow out.

[Vitaphone Racing]

And what difference does it make?

By concepts of scales and price comparisons, there's a point at which one version is more expensive than the alternative. All my point is that the A-10 is cheaper, and at some unknown scale, the A-10 will be cheaper.

The problem is that your analysis is far too narrow. It's not as simple as some algebraic equation where Total cost = 500x + 600y like you're implying. In order to take those hours from the multirole and put them on the A-10, you first have to completely refurbish the A-10 fleet or replace it with new aircraft because these ones are getting old and that's why they're being retired now as opposed to ten years ago when they had some life left. You still have to run an extra branch of logistical and training support tailored to the A-10. You have to add more administration roles seeing as your creating more military units instead of tapping into ones that already exist. My first explanation was pretty clear about this, I thought. I'm not sure you what you didn't understand.

Yeah, because we all know multiroles aren't logistically intensive or anything. I can buy more multiroles at 40 million each that will last 5000 hours, or I can buy A-10s at 20 million each that will last 8000+. Obviously there's a crossover point at which one crosses over the other on the graph.

You like the flexibility of multirole aircraft and are willing to pay for it. Great. That doesn't mean that it's unfeasible for the cheaper aircraft to *gasp* be cheaper. Otherwise the Su-25 and A-10 would never have been invented to begin with.

edit: and lol at the logistics, training, and administrative roles scaling perfectly inversely proportionate to the cheaper aircraft

Are you actually this bad at responding to points or did you realize that you've backed yourself into a corner and are now trying to distract me with bullshit?

[Mitheldalond]

We all know the A-10 is outdated but not without its uses, however what about a modern CAS, (I mean for the sake of discussion) IF we were to design a CAS, how would we want to fit large tank popping weapons onto a slower flying plane with modern day advanced countermeasures and other "trinkets". Read carefully before saying what I said is redundant this time, especially in the ()'s.

So far it sounds like you would ideally want something with the hover related mobility of an attack helicopter combined with the speed (faster response time) and payload of a multirole fighter, the ruggedness of an A-10 or Apache, a powerful gun for situations where missiles can't be used, and advanced avionics and countermeasures.

So something similar to a Harrier, maybe?

Or possibly a smaller MV-22 Osprey, say the size of a Blackhawk maybe? (I think something like that exists conceptually, but I can't remember what it's called.) Give it armor like an Apache, and a 25-30mm Gatling cannon in place of the MV-22's retractable Minigun. Possibly replace the passenger compartment with an internal bomb bay with rotary launchers for air-to-ground missiles and bombs, and maybe AIM-9s mounted on the bomb bay doors.

That should give you the desired flight characteristics of a plane and a helicopter, the armor of an A-10 or Apache, the payload of a strike fighter, and a powerful gun for very close air support.

The weight of the armor and payload would probably limit it's combat radius, unless you go with a smaller weapons bay and used the extra space to store more fuel, maybe. I also don't see a way for it to carry rocket pods, since the rotors would prevent you from mounting weapons on the wings, and rocket pods probably wouldn't work in a rotary weapons bay.

I'm also not sure how the pilots would eject from an aircraft that's going down, due to the rotors.

[Cote dSoleil]

Are you actually this bad at responding to points or did you realize that you've backed yourself into a corner and are now trying to distract me with bullshit?

Nope, I'm just stupid and should kneel before your greatness.

[Estainia]

Your overwhelming sarcasm is largely unwelcome in a thread reaching both the end of its very long life, and not used to suffering such... antics on a regular basis. Either accept what's said to you and run along or bugger off.

[Sandawe]

The main combat aircraft of the National Sandawe Air Force is the F-5E Tiger. A large number were made available by the United States government for purchase at an extremely low price to counter MiG-21 fighters flown by the Sandawe Communist Liberation Front in 1976, and the Sandawe government eventually acquired sixty examples of the aircraft. Throughout the First Sandawe Civil War, NSAF pilots downed a total of thirty eight communist aircraft and only lost seventeen of their own. The number of F-5E Tigers was restored to sixty towards the end of the conflict. In 1982, the United States launched an embargo against Sandawe and it became increasingly difficult to maintain them. This problem was only exasperated in the 1990s when the economy collapsed. During the 2000s, the F-5E Tigers also saw combat service in the Second Sandawe Civil War where they were mainly used in the attack role against rebel encampments. Only seventeen F-5E Tigers remain airworthy to this day, but they are still the most numerous aircraft currently in service with the NSAF. President Kezilahabi hopes to restore the Sandawe fighter force to is full strength sometime in the near future.

[Hasmonea]

If the A-10 you speak of is new-build, you'll have to account for inflation. If not, you'll have to account for increased maintenance hours and costs as the airframes age. I'm not sure if you'll be seeing serious savings after factoring either of these in.

Not sure about V-22, but the rotors of attack helicopters are blown off (by 'explosive bolts' I think) prior to ejection.

[Cote dSoleil]

Your overwhelming sarcasm is largely unwelcome in a thread reaching both the end of its very long life, and not used to suffering such... antics on a regular basis. Either accept what's said to you and run along or bugger off.

So I'm being personally attacked because I said a cheaper aircraft is cheaper? Lol. That's cute.

I've tried this forum/game/community. Really, I have. I've made several accounts, and I've been lurking since the original tank threads. I've tried being an active member of the community, and I've tried lurking to get a gist of what "my" problems were on the accounts I was active on. And you know what I noticed? The oldfags get a hemorrhoid every single fucking time that there's a new poster. New posters aren't the problem, it's the way they're treated here.

It's funny, because it doesn't even matter if you acknowledge what a failure that this community is. It's quite telling how every time someone gets butthurt in one of these thread that people start worrying that it will get locked and not allowed anymore. It happened with the tank thread, it happened with the main military weapon thread, and it's not going to stop happening because the established members are still the common denominators. We as new players/posters aren't the problem.

But hey, I'm the stupid one even though the rest of you can't acknowledge it.

[The Akasha Colony]

If the A-10 you speak of is new-build, you'll have to account for inflation. If not, you'll have to account for increased maintenance hours and costs as the airframes age. I'm not sure if you'll be seeing serious savings after factoring either of these in.

Not sure about V-22, but the rotors of attack helicopters are blown off (by 'explosive bolts' I think) prior to ejection.

Inflation is the least of your concerns. Inflation alone is actually a pretty poor gauge of how much an aircraft would cost to produce when adjusted for time period. Namely, inflation cannot account for changes in the cost of labor and materials, which can substantially vary by time period. This is to say nothing of skill base, available equipment/facilities, and other inputs.

So I'm being personally attacked because I said a cheaper aircraft is cheaper? Lol. That's cute.

That wasn't the issue; no one's debated that the A-10 is cheaper than a multirole. The issue is that this alone is an irrelevant point; a Cessna with a machine gun strapped to each wing is cheaper in turn than an A-10.

The issue is cost-effectiveness relative to a combination of other platforms that a nation would likely already be fielding, whether this possible benefit could be used to justify the creation of a specialized ground-attack platform, and whether such a platform could be justified once the entire systems cost of development, procurement, training, fielding, deployment, and other factors are considered.

I've tried this forum/game/community. Really, I have. I've made several accounts, and I've been lurking since the original tank threads. I've tried being an active member of the community, and I've tried lurking to get a gist of what "my" problems were on the accounts I was active on. And you know what I noticed? The oldfags get a hemorrhoid every single fucking time that there's a new poster. New posters aren't the problem, it's the way they're treated here.

It's funny, because it doesn't even matter if you acknowledge what a failure that this community is. It's quite telling how every time someone gets butthurt in one of these thread that people start worrying that it will get locked and not allowed anymore. It happened with the tank thread, it happened with the main military weapon thread, and it's not going to stop happening because the established members are still the common denominators. We as new players/posters aren't the problem.

But hey, I'm the stupid one even though the rest of you can't acknowledge it.

It's hardly restricted to new members. Just ask how often Forza and I have gotten into a debate. Or how often R&C gets into debates with... just about everyone. Or that near-blowup between Danton and Sumer. It's by no means limited just to new members, there are often heated differences of opinion between older members too. It's just that generally older members have figured out where they stand, and are sometimes more reluctant to open up the same can of worms again.

[Crookfur]

So far it sounds like you would ideally want something with the hover related mobility of an attack helicopter combined with the speed (faster response time) and payload of a multirole fighter, the ruggedness of an A-10 or Apache, a powerful gun for situations where missiles can't be used, and advanced avionics and countermeasures.

So something similar to a Harrier, maybe?

Or possibly a smaller MV-22 Osprey, say the size of a Blackhawk maybe? (I think something like that exists conceptually, but I can't remember what it's called.) Give it armor like an Apache, and a 25-30mm Gatling cannon in place of the MV-22's retractable Minigun. Possibly replace the passenger compartment with an internal bomb bay with rotary launchers for air-to-ground missiles and bombs, and maybe AIM-9s mounted on the bomb bay doors.

That should give you the desired flight characteristics of a plane and a helicopter, the armor of an A-10 or Apache, the payload of a strike fighter, and a powerful gun for very close air support.

The weight of the armor and payload would probably limit it's combat radius, unless you go with a smaller weapons bay and used the extra space to store more fuel, maybe. I also don't see a way for it to carry rocket pods, since the rotors would prevent you from mounting weapons on the wings, and rocket pods probably wouldn't work in a rotary weapons bay.

I'm also not sure how the pilots would eject from an aircraft that's going down, due to the rotors.

a harrier a like vectored jet would be useless, as they can't hover for any length of time. Harrier were basically designed do the same job as the A-10, just istead of being big and having lots of loiter they were to be operated from disperssed lcoations very clsoe to the front line. Of course the harrier as it is today is used in the same way an F-16 is i.e. it stands off at alttitude whilst the pilots sing the JDAM blues.

Tilt rotors have thier trnasition issues and aren't fantastic in the hover either so if you want a reliable, survivable "fast VTOL" type thingy the idela solution is of course some kind of gyroplane/gyrodyne/rotodyne/slowed rotor concept aircraft.


As to what a "modern" A-10 replacement would look like we simply have to look at the various concepts he US, USSR and various european countires looked at starting in the 80s, all of which trended towards a much smaller and cheaper aircraft that was mostly stupidly agile, often turbo prop powered, occasionally with lulzy weapons (SABA merlin launcher) and by the late 80s and into the 90s most definitely going to be a UCAV or at least optionally manned. Pretty much all your current cheap turboprop COIN aircraft proposals are very similar.

So basically you have 2 choices for a modern A-10 repalcement: if you will be fighting a hot parity war against another developed natiostate the repalcement will be a drone but if you are going to be doing mainly COIN work then its a cheapish single or twin turboprop possibly even just a smally utility aircraft with hellfires bolted to the wings (ala grand caravan).

[Purpelia]

I wonder how a heavily modernized* Ju-87 would perform in the COIN ground attack role.

*by heavily modernized I mean quite literally building an aircraft with the same shape, aerodynamics and concept but from modern materials and using modern components and construction techniques. So it's more of a "inspired by" than "based on".

[Crookfur]

I wonder how a heavily modernized* Ju-87 would perform in the COIN ground attack role.

*by heavily modernized I mean quite literally building an aircraft with the same shape, aerodynamics and concept but from modern materials and using modern components and construction techniques. So it's more of a "inspired by" than "based on".

probably a bit worse than something like a super tucano, Texan II or PC-7/9/21 which have the benefits of modern aerodynaics, mostly in regard to range, fuel usage and manouverability.

[Imperializt Russia]

CAS:

Name: Phantom Striker
Class: Air Support
Cost: 99 Million
Pilots: One main pilot, one guided munitions controller

Size:
Length: 15.2 Meters
Wing Span: 11.8 Meters
Weight: 23,215 lbs

Engine:
3x GE TF-34 Engine
590 mph Top Speed
2x fuel containers

Armaments:
1x 30 mm Auto-cannon
4x UB32 Rocket Pods
2x AGM-130 Bunker Busters

So what i have hear is something similar to a A-10, With a little more speed, weight and a wider wing span, Our nation usually use it to either wipe out armored targets (MBT's and such), Certain Structures, as well as light vehicles.

Cant preform as tight as a angle as a A-10 however it comes in from wider angles before lighting up ground forces.

This does seem use able right?

For a hundred million dollars, you could probably appropriate one aircraft from a long-standing F-35 run and load it up with long-range PGMs. Rocket pods and "bunker busters" are not a traditional loadout that fast air carry against tank formations.

In terms of survivability, cargo capacity, maintenance costs, etc., which aircraft is the best to have: the A400M Atlas or the An-70?

Survivability for both if someone shoots at them: Fucked and dead.

AN-70: 300 troops or 47,000 kg

A400M: 116 troops or 37,000 kg

Maintenance is probably comparable for both aircraft

Traditionally, the Soviet aircraft would be less maintenance intensive.
But of course, the An-70 is old and the A-400M is not.

Helicopters can fly low and stay behind the terrain. The infantry then designate a target for the helicopter which fires a missile. Look at the apache and other attack helicopters, that is there main job.

Yet the infantry keeps requesting the A-10 for air support.

Sure it can't pen the roofs of MBTs. Neither can an Apache's gun. The A-10 can still decimate anything else with its gun. APCs, IFVs, humvees, trucks, machine gun nests, supply convoys, buildings, and so on.

The A-10 is about the same size as an Apache. Both are protected against 23mm rounds. Both can be shot down by MANPADS. The A-10 is significantly faster than the Apache, meaning it spends less time over the target, giving you less time to shoot it down. If they are shot down, the A-10 pilot can eject; the Apache crew cannot. If an Apache is shot down, you lose 2 people; with an A-10 you only lose 1, and there is a greater chance that he will survive than the Apache crew.

Both the Apache and A-10 carry 30mm guns. The A-10 fires faster and carries more ammo. Both can carry 70mm rocket pods; the A-10 can carry more of them. The Apache can carry Hellfires, while the A-10 carries Mavericks. The Maverick has a much greater range and a much bigger warhead than the Hellfire. The A-10 can carry bombs; the Apache cannot. The A-10 carries 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders for self-defense, while the Apache can only carry the AIM-92 Stinger. The A-10 can fly as low as 75ft, and has a higher flight ceiling than the Apache. The have about the same operational range.

The A-10 is not easy to shoot down. According to Wikipedia, "The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing".

Most of this is not really correct.

Most of what you're trying to compare is not comparable on any level.

You fail to understand any consideration behind using either aircraft or even what they're meant to do.
You fail to understand the advantages behind helicopters or jets.

To the degree I'm not sure I can be arsed to try and refute your points.

Aren't A-10s pretty cheap and easy to run vs. attack helicopters and fighter aircraft though?

(Image)

Yes.
A-10 costs $18.91 in 2014 USD.
AH-64D costs $20.62 million in 2014 USD.

And I will reiterate. You shouldn't be sending aircraft into areas with heavy air defenses in the first place.. Yes, the A-10 would be slaughtered in such circumstances. So would an Apache, F-16, F-15E, and any other ground attack aircraft.

Uhh...

Are you familiar with what Suppression of Enemy Air Defences is?
It's a strategy undertaken by aircraft, to destroy and limit the effectiveness of heavy air defences.

The Gulf War saw the deployment of A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, AH-64s, F-117s, B-2s, F-111s and EW aircraft directly against air defences. IIRC the Apaches were one of the first units to actually open fire.

We all know the A-10 is outdated but not without its uses, however what about a modern CAS, (I mean for the sake of discussion) IF we were to design a CAS, how would we want to fit large tank popping weapons onto a slower flying plane with modern day advanced countermeasures and other "trinkets". Read carefully before saying what I said is redundant this time, especially in the ()'s.

"Close Air Support" does not refer to the proximity of the aircraft to its targets or what it supports, it refers to what it's being used to engage and its proximity to what it is supporting.

The A-10 did CAS from close range directly over the battlefield with its gun because long-range guided munitions were in their infancy at best and rules of engagement precluded their use and the gun system was effective at killing battle tanks.

Now we have highly effective long-range guided munitions and systems to reduce the effectiveness of radar targeting against aircraft. We can load up a lighter, faster multi-role aircraft with just as many heavy weapons (minus gun) and conduct our close air support operations from several kilometres from the unit we're defending, keeping them well away from the opposing battalion's shoulder-launched missiles and gun SHORADS. Their low observability keeps them safer from the battalion or regiment's medium-range missiles and the division's long-range missiles.

[Purpelia]

I wonder how a heavily modernized* Ju-87 would perform in the COIN ground attack role.

*by heavily modernized I mean quite literally building an aircraft with the same shape, aerodynamics and concept but from modern materials and using modern components and construction techniques. So it's more of a "inspired by" than "based on".

probably a bit worse than something like a super tucano, Texan II or PC-7/9/21 which have the benefits of modern aerodynaics, mostly in regard to range, fuel usage and manouverability.

I see? I guess that dive bombing is no longer a valid tactic anyway.

[Britinthia]

I wonder how a heavily modernized* Ju-87 would perform in the COIN ground attack role.

*by heavily modernized I mean quite literally building an aircraft with the same shape, aerodynamics and concept but from modern materials and using modern components and construction techniques. So it's more of a "inspired by" than "based on".

Not well, by the end of the war they were being used as low level bombers with all of their diving equipment removed. So the dive bombing aspect is out, mostly because as long as you have some sort of air defense or autocannon you will be able to shoot at it for what feels like forever for the pilots.
Without that its just a really bad CAS aircraft. PC-21 ftw!

[Purpelia]

I wonder how a heavily modernized* Ju-87 would perform in the COIN ground attack role.

*by heavily modernized I mean quite literally building an aircraft with the same shape, aerodynamics and concept but from modern materials and using modern components and construction techniques. So it's more of a "inspired by" than "based on".

Not well, by the end of the war they were being used as low level bombers with all of their diving equipment removed. So the dive bombing aspect is out, mostly because as long as you have some sort of air defense or autocannon you will be able to shoot at it for what feels like forever for the pilots.
Without that its just a really bad CAS aircraft. PC-21 ftw!

I just had this crazy idea of diving one at 90 degrees to drop a bomb accurately down an afgan cave.

[Britinthia]

I just had this crazy idea of diving one at 90 degrees to drop a bomb accurately down an afgan cave.

I... But... You see... Omg do it! Do it now, to hell with logic!

[Mitheldalond]

I wonder how a heavily modernized* Ju-87 would perform in the COIN ground attack role.

*by heavily modernized I mean quite literally building an aircraft with the same shape, aerodynamics and concept but from modern materials and using modern components and construction techniques. So it's more of a "inspired by" than "based on".

I did the same thing with the P-51 Mustang. Except its a drone. With six 25mm XM307 automatic grenade launchers, six .50 cal XM312 machine guns, or some combination of the 2. And 10 hardpoints a la Cavalier Mustang.

My deepest desire is to have them dogfight A-10s.

[Yakzistan]

Would a A-37s Dragonflys flying as CAS along with OV-10s for FAC be a good strategy ?

[The Corparation]

Would a A-37s Dragonflys flying as CAS along with OV-10s for FAC be a good strategy ?

For a low intensity conflict in which you aren't facing a credible aa threat, I think they're a good choice.

[Antarticaria]

Alright, What about concepts for a Jet propelled Osprey? (@whoever mentioned the V-22) (something along those lines for some increased speed), I am curious about how it would behave for the pilot as far as landing and transferring.

[Pharthan]

Alright, What about concepts for a Jet propelled Osprey? (@whoever mentioned the V-22) (something along those lines for some increased speed), I am curious about how it would behave for the pilot as far as landing and transferring.

I'd be more concerned about how the flight-deck of an aircraft carrier/LHD would behave. As in, hopefully not melting. Serious concern. Main reason why the new Japanese carrier may not be operating the F-35B. Kinda need special heat resistant non-skid coating for hot-exhaust VTOL.

I don't see transferring being too big an issue, but takeoff/landing may be. The V-22 is already renowned for having crashing issues. While they may be fixed now, I'd think you'd have more to worry about all of a sudden with this alteration.

[The Corparation]

Alright, What about concepts for a Jet propelled Osprey? (@whoever mentioned the V-22) (something along those lines for some increased speed), I am curious about how it would behave for the pilot as far as landing and transferring.

Possible, but not practical. Tilt jets have been built in the past, and they are massive fuel hogs.

[Antarticaria]

Alright, What about concepts for a Jet propelled Osprey? (@whoever mentioned the V-22) (something along those lines for some increased speed), I am curious about how it would behave for the pilot as far as landing and transferring.

I'd be more concerned about how the flight-deck of an aircraft carrier/LHD would behave. As in, hopefully not melting. Serious concern. Main reason why the new Japanese carrier may not be operating the F-35B. Kinda need special heat resistant non-skid coating for hot-exhaust VTOL.

I don't see transferring being too big an issue, but takeoff/landing may be. The V-22 is already renowned for having crashing issues. While they may be fixed now, I'd think you'd have more to worry about all of a sudden with this alteration.

Yeah the crashing issues. hmm.