All things MV-22 Osprey

[sevenhelmet]

With reference to the A-10, I get that the airframe is outdated, but I don’t think the mission is. I also think it is unusual that the AF proposes using a high end fighter for a low end fight - all that tells me is that Army infantry will be calling on rotary air support more and more. I’d also add that the AF is very wedded to maintaining near antique airframes like the F-15 and B-52…and yes they can still do the job as many claim the A-10 could.

I do not for the life of me understand why the USAF doesn't seem to want a mix of high and low-threat platforms. Your F-35s will last longer if the low-threat CAS scenarios can be covered by less expensive platforms to buy and operate in sufficient quantities to cover unexpected scenarios. Operational costs can go down, and high-end, gold-plated stuff lasts longer. But that argument falls on deaf ears, and I still don't know why.

 

[Griz882]

Again, I’m not arguing for a zombie A-10, I am saying the mission will exist in the future and the AF is ignoring that by saying, Oh…the F-35 will do. I am well aware there is only so much money to go around, but I am also aware that we are closing in on a great mistake that every great military philosopher calls…”Don’t put all your eggs in a single basket.” If the AF doesn’t want the CAS mission then clear the way for the Army to have armed fixed wing assets.

 

[phrogdriver]

I do not for the life of me understand why the USAF doesn't seem to want a mix of high and low-threat platforms. Your F-35s will last longer if the low-threat CAS scenarios can be covered by less expensive platforms to buy and operate in sufficient quantities to cover unexpected scenarios. Operational costs can go down, and high-end, gold-plated stuff lasts longer. But that argument falls on deaf ears, and I still don't know why.

Because you’re not only dealing with CPFH, you are also limited by other things across the force and by force generation requirements outside the force.

The size of the service is set by Congress, so for starters that limits how many units you can reasonably have, even if you could recruit and retain them, which is hard enough already.

Then there are facilities, from ramp space to slots in depot maintenance which are spoken for a decade in advance.

All that caps how big a fleet you can feasibly support in total, even if the airplanes themselves cost more or less.

Against that, every service is tasked with providing certain types of units for deployment or availability at any given time. For the USAF, everyone wants transports, tankers, and strike fighters. Only in specific circumstances do they want A-10s.

When I gave an engraved K-bar as a going away gift, I said,”You can put a knife on your wall, but you can’t kill a man with a plaque.”

So it is here. You can do CAS with a strike fighters, but you can’t CAP with an A-10.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Because you’re not only dealing with CPFH, you are also limited by other things across the force and by force generation requirements outside the force.

The size of the service is set by Congress, so for starters that limits how many units you can reasonably have, even if you could recount retain them, which is hard enough already.

Then there are facilities, from ramp space to slots in depot maintenance which are spoken for a decade in advance.

All that caps how big a fleet you can feasibly support in total, even if the airplanes themselves cost more or less.

Against that, every service is tasked with providing certain types of units for deployment or availability at any given time. For the USAF, everyone wants transports, tankers, and strike fighters. Only in specific circumstances do they want A-10s.

When I gave an engraved K-bar as a going away gift, I said,”You can put a knife on your wall, but you can’t kill a man with a plaque.”

So it is here. You can do CAS with a strike fighters, but you can’t CAP with an A-10.

Great summation of the various levers that get pulled - good stuff!

 

[Brett327]

With reference to the A-10, I get that the airframe is outdated, but I don’t think the mission is. I also think it is unusual that the AF proposes using a high end fighter for a low end fight - all that tells me is that Army infantry will be calling on rotary air support more and more. I’d also add that the AF is very wedded to maintaining near antique airframes like the F-15 and B-52…and yes they can still do the job as many claim the A-10 could.

Let's precisely define the mission the A-10 is suited for: CAS in a fully permissive environment where Air Supremacy is assured.

That's a pretty big caveat, given the threat environment we're likely to encounter in the next 20 years. With limited resources for our platforms, I think you're going to have an awfully tough time arguing that a legacy platform like A-10 should get those resources, and not another more capable platform that doesn't have that enormous asterisk next to it. 5th gen aircraft are backwards compatible to permissive environments... the A-10 is a one trick, increasingly corner case, pony.

 

[Griz882]

Again, I am not a cheerleader for the A-10. I get, the airframe is old and wouldn’t fare well in a high end fight. That is not my point. What I’m noting is that the USAFs lack of a follow on, dedicated, CAS/CSAR aircraft will eventually equal a loss of the corporate knowledge of counter-land tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). I really doubt the AF is going to dedicate a F-35 wing to CAS/CSAR meaning all the pilots will be high-tech fighter pilots asked to “fill in” on a CAS mission. Put simply, it isn’t about the airframe, it is about training, TTPs, and the fact that the guys on the ground need a genuine “attack” aviator more than a 5th Gen trained pilot flying an aircraft that is backwards compatible to permissive environments.

Despite all of that I do understand that resources are limited and the AF wants to spend it their way.

 

[phrogdriver]

Again, I am not a cheerleader for the A-10. I get, the airframe is old and wouldn’t fare well in a high end fight. That is not my point. What I’m noting is that the USAFs lack of a follow on, dedicated, CAS/CSAR aircraft will eventually equal a loss of the corporate knowledge of counter-land tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). I really doubt the AF is going to dedicate a F-35 wing to CAS/CSAR meaning all the pilots will be high-tech fighter pilots asked to “fill in” on a CAS mission. Put simply, it isn’t about the airframe, it is about training, TTPs, and the fact that the guys on the ground need a genuine “attack” aviator more than a 5th Gen trained pilot flying an aircraft that is backwards compatible to permissive environments.

Despite all of that I do understand that resources are limited and the AF wants to spend it their way.

That’s reasonable. I might have viewed your post from the point of view of someone who’s sick of discussion boards where idiots just go BRRRT! BRRRT! Whenever someone tries to add nuance to the discussion.

That’s a reasonable training issue, but it’s not an argument for keeping a piece of hardware.

I know that some people will say it’s sacrilege, but CAS tomorrow doesn’t have to be the same as CAS today. Perhaps with good enough target cuing, MUM-T, launched effects, etc, CAS won’t always be low passes and gun runs. It may be a manned aircraft directing a series of LEs that identify potential targets and are tasked to attack them by the human, or even designate for a different platform.

“But looking through a UAS is like viewing through a soda straw!” Less true every day. And image processing software allows better SA every day. Plus AI will sort out the wheat from the chaff.

But what about gun runs? Suicide. Besides, DARPA’s building a drone with a cannon.

We can’t live in the shadow of Vietnam forever.

 

[Griz882]

That’s reasonable. I might have viewed your post from the point of view of someone who’s sick of discussion boards where idiots just go BRRRT! BRRRT! Whenever someone tries to add nuance to the discussion.

That’s a reasonable training issue, but it’s not an argument for keeping a piece of hardware.

I know that some people will say it’s sacrilege, but CAS tomorrow doesn’t have to be the same as CAS today. Perhaps with good enough target cuing, MUM-T, launched effects, etc, CAS won’t always be low passes and gun runs. It may be a manned aircraft directing a series of LEs that identify potential targets and are tasked to attack them by the human, or even designate for a different platform.

“But looking through a UAS is like viewing through a soda straw!” Less true every day. And image processing software allows better SA every day. Plus AI will sort out the wheat from the chaff.

But what about gun runs? Suicide. Besides, DARPA’s building a drone with a cannon.

We can’t live in the shadow of Vietnam forever.

Yeah, I”m well past the “If you don’t land with palm fronds in your intakes you don’t have hair on your chest!” kind of stuff and I like your comments on the facts that CAS tomorrow doesn’t have to equal CAS of the last war. I would argue, however, that the TTPs and concepts need to be remembered and practiced with whatever hardware is available. I benefited from CAS in Afghanistan and Iraq (but curiously never from an A-10) and can tell you that I could see the difference between a “fighter” pilot and an “attack” pilot. From my face-in-the-dirt perspective it mattered.