Critics of [fast jets] in ground support say it's too fast, that a pilot zooming along at 600 m.p.h. or better can't spot ground targets quickly enough to do anything about them. And that at these speeds he can't hit anything he sees.
The A-10 debate is clearly not very original. It's apparently as old as are jets. It's curious how and why the debate was kept alive in but one country: All other countries can make do without a slow CAS aircraft, not considering it to be essential.
edit: The debate will at least end here. This hardware-centric fanboy topic is annoying me. I wrote my text on CAS long ago anyway.
.
edit: The debate will at least end here. This hardware-centric fanboy topic is annoying me. I wrote my text on CAS long ago anyway.
Not really _all_ other countries since at least Italy, Brazil, Russia and some ex-Soviet and Soviet-aligned countries have CAS aircraft. Many others also have auxiliary attack aircraft in the form of armed trainers like the L-39 and Hawk.
ReplyDeleteThis wasn't about CAS or not; it was about slow or fast CAS.
DeleteA-10s have a top speed in the range of WW2 fighters (with piston engine and propeller!).
No other country insists on this; Su-25 and AMX are much faster.
I guess "slow" in my mind meant "subsonic" since M1.6+ fighters with FLIR pods and guided bombs seems to be the current trend in CAS. After all, like the article said, using all flaps and slats, even an SU-25 can go slow enough for guns and rockets. The replacement of the A-10, the F-35, is going to dart into the ground if it tries that.
DeleteThe difference between 500 kph and 800 kph with bombs low is significant. The former leaves an ordinary chance to manually operated AAA, the latter reduces manually operated AAA so much in efficiency that it's not worthwhile any more.
DeleteNo supersonic combat aircraft would go supersonic during CAS; even a M2+ F-15E wouldn't be much faster than a Su-25 during CAS.
Manually operated AAA these days is only for self-protection and in those cases attacking aircraft will not fly high, erratically or at highly oblique angles and thus speed is less of a factor, albeit still a large one.
DeleteI contend that an SU-25 will generally fly at speeds and altitudes closer to those of an A-10 and fly missions and flight profiles closer to what the A-10 does than multirole fighter aircraft like the Eurofighter, Gripen, Hornet, F-16, F-35 that are the de-facto CAS assets of most countries today and in the coming decades, and thus should be the target of comparison instead of what was relevant 30 years ago.
The Su-25 pilots shifted to attack profiles from beyond Stinger range in the 80's already - very similar to what a Mach 2 fighter-bomber would do with the same ammunitions onboard.
DeleteA steep dive initiated at 7+ km altitude with release at about 5 km altitude.
The earlier attacks with shallow dives down to less than 1 km altitude were given up in face of ManPADS (not only Stinger; Redeye and Igla were troublesome as well).
The Soviets used unguided rockets and bombs, almost never the 30 mm. Unguided munitions released in a dive with a decent fire control system can hit reliably with a CEP of a few metres.
The USA has been involved in many more conflicts than most if not all other countries, and our ground troops have routinely complained about the quality of air support. Most of these conflicts have also been colonial wars, and thus we haven't faced first-class air defense systems where slow aircraft are perhaps questionable. This has created habitual pressure from the Army and the Marines for the Air Force to take CAS more seriously, as well as not insignificant civilian pressure groups composed of veterans and armchair generals.
ReplyDeleteThe Su-25 does have a top seed around 300km/h faster than the A-10, but it still has a low stall speed for a modern combat aircraft. It's higher top speed is achieved by design compromises not shared with the A-10. Its engine layout reduces drag and thus increases top speed, but it exposes its exhaust nozzels to MANPADs. Despite being about the same airframe weights, the A-10 carries nearly double as much ordnance. But perhaps the Soviets valued a more general purpose CAS aircraft given their superiority in armor and artillery.
Other countries think they can make do without a slow and armored CAS aircraft, but I believe they are wrong. Most countries now also think they can make do with a single multirole fighter as their only combat aircraft, that slashing flying hours in favor of simulator training is fine, and that there's no need to keep large stocks of ammunition. Peace breeds complacency and a neglect of unsexy needs.
With modern all-aspect MANPADs engine placement is moot.
DeleteNot quite. Remember the nozzle extensions on Israeli Skyhawks? It was said that these made it more difficult for ASA-7s and AA-2s to lock on. Actually, these extensions merely triggered the fuzes slightly earlier. This way the fragments damaged an unimportant tube rather than vital components of the engine and tail.
DeleteThe Israelis introduced this after comparing the effect of missile hits on different aircraft during the Yom Kippur War.
So the A-10's engine may still be better shielded against warhead.
I should also add that the poor gun efficiency of the A-10's gatling gun design necessarily made the aircraft larger and less aerodynamic. The Soviet choice of a gast gun is probably better overall and is another factor contributing to its higher top speed.
ReplyDeleteA key ability of the A-10 that is unmentioned is the ability to operate from "austere" runways, and more importantly with minimal infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteThis was a factor in Afghanistan and other wars, as modern high performance aircraft tend to require much higher ground support infrastructure in order to operate.
GAB
The same can be said of F-5s, F-16s, F-18s, Tornados, Gripens, Jaguars and many other supersonic combat aircraft.
DeleteCold War combat aircraft in Europe were almost all meant to be operated from roads during WW3.
And you don't need much maintenance if you allow all the in Afghanistan unessential systems to fail that the A-10 doesn't have in the first place.
The A-10 certainly has draw backs and un-pleasantries, but the robustness of the airframe, engines, and landing gear give it an unmatched ability to operate out of seriously appalling bases.
DeleteEuropean roads are a low bar for unimproved airfields, and A-10s have been employed from *dirt runways* that would destroy the undercarriages of the aircraft you listed.
The F-18 was certainly not designed to operate from roads, and the F-16 inlet position makes it far more prone to FOD than the A-10.
GAB
Actually, just about every supersonic combat jet with twin tires was built for grass strip operation. MiG-29, for example.
DeleteThe landing gear of the F-16 is behind the inlet, so there's little FOD trouble to be expected. Only low density objects would be sucked in.
The F/A-18 was designed with the USMC in mind, and they don't fly exclusively from carriers and airbases. The Hornet also operated from roads during exercises.
Also, http://youtu.be/AvDfs6s4tbA?t=15m
I stand by my assertion: the A-10 is a far more durable aircraft than its fighter peers and was designed with an unmatched ability to operate out of seriously appalling bases (at least for U.S. aircraft).
DeleteNote that the USAF safety center statistics data demonstrates quite conclusively that the A-10 has significantly lower engine-related Class A rates than the fighter aircraft you listed. A common sense comparison of the engine inlet locations should make this obvious, but here are the numbers:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/organizations/aviation/enginestatistics/index.asp
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140520-050.pdf
Note that the statistics are even more skewed because fighters are operated almost exclusively from groomed air bases with mechanized runway sweepers, while the A-10 are frequently been operated from more austere runways (including rocky desert runways that would snap the landing gear of the fighters).
http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123226224
And please point to the design specifications for the F/A-18 that show the aircraft was designed to operate from dirt fields. Certainly the landing gear of any carrier capable aircraft is going to be stronger and more resilient than non-carrier peer fighters, but improvised runway capability is a lucky happenstance, not a design feature.
Finally, thank you for the video of the F-5, I really love that aircraft as well.
GAB
I didn't claim the Hornet was made from dirt fields. I wrote about its employment by Marines for CAS and its operation from roads.
DeleteSearch for yourself; even videos of F-18's taking off from roads are easily found.
Much less than ten engine mishaps per 100,000 flying hours is not relevant in a campaign, particularly not for twin engined aircraft.
What matters is the sorties rate for a given ground support. The sorties rate doesn't differ much over short ranges in practice and A-10 sorties fall behind badly over long ranges because of their slow cruise speed.
You need to look at the USAF engine-related Class A mishap rates again: the F-16 mishap rate is roughly 10 times that of the A-10! That is massively relevant in a campaign, and certainly reflects in the cost per flight hour.
DeleteIf sortie rate is the measure of choice then the A-10 wins again. Saying that the A-10 has range problem ignores the historical fact that, it was the first aircraft that the USAF could deploy into theater in two wars (Afghanistan and the First Gulf War). It also fails to reflect the huge advantage in loiter time the A-10 has, which is critical for ground support.
None of this addresses the reality that the key performance aspect of air combat is crew proficiency. Multi-function fighters can certainly do ground attack missions, but the until flight hours are significantly raised, there currently are simply is not enough flight hours for fighter aircrews to be adequately prepared for even their primary mission, let alone secondary missions like ground support.
As I stated before, the A-10 has significant draw backs, but you are really far off-with your assertions. There is a role for a cheap, effective ground support aircraft, just as there is a role for a cheap, effective fighter in the arsenals of most Western nations. I am less convinced by the requirement for attack helicopters.
GAB
None of the F-16 related graphs spiked higher than about 5.2 in 100,000 flying hours.
DeleteThe relation to A-10 doesn't matter here; the average is much less than one in 20,000 flying hours, or one in approx. three F-16 careers.
A force of 100 F-16s flying 8 hours/pay (300 crews) would experience one Class A engine trouble per month at this rate.
This is not a major hindrance during a real war. That's like having one or two Class A engine problems in F-16s during Desert Storm, for example.
And it's even less relevant for twin engined aircraft.
Nonsense,
DeleteThe fact that the F-16 is flown from groomed runways that are meticulously vacuumed for FOD prevention, and still has a much higher engine-related Class A mishap rate than the F-15 (~ same engine, but different inlet height), and a massively higher mishap rate than the A-10 which is flown from every sort of unimproved runway should put paid to the argument.
How you can claim that the F-16 will be able to operate from unimproved runways without driving the engine-related Class A mishap rate through the roof defies logic; it defies common sense, and it defies USAF historical record.
Sustained combat operations from unimproved airfields is a problem for F-16s. The position you are trying to push is unsupportable. The F-16 is a great aircraft, but not great for off-tarmac operations.
GAB
... and now you'll provide a list of Western air force deployments post-1953 during which the difference between operating from dirt/grass strips or roads mattered at all.
DeleteSave for the Harrier deployment to the Falklands, as this was not exactly within the A-10's repertoire anyway.
And please learn to read properly what is written. I did not claim what you wrote I supposedly did claim.
Also note what your link says: ""Engine-related" excludes mishaps caused by FOD, birdstrike, or failure of support systems external to the engine (ex. fuel starvation)"
The entire statistic there isn't about FOD at all.
Sortie rate is an important, but not the only relevant criteria, for ground support missions.
ReplyDeleteOn station time is important as well. The A-10 takes longer to get to the battlefield, but once there it is able to stay on station for longer and at lower altitudes than an F-16.
They don't fly low often these days either. The 15k ft minimum altitude is the default rule for them as well. Occasional low altitude strafing can and is being done by fast jets as well.
DeleteAnd persistence is the strength of artillery. Loitering only increases risks, tires the pilot and reduces sortie rates.