"Time to bring back the US Army Air Corps?" Topic

Once again procurement fighter folks in the Air Force are trying to force out the A-10, the only solid CAS aircraft the USAF operates today, and replace it with the F-35. A costs have mushroomed for the multi-role F-35 (guess we haven't learned from past fiascos yet), the folks who have tied their careers to it are now promising all things to all people, including replacing the A-10 for CAS.

Now they are running a "fly-off" evidently skewed towards the F-35 to prove the A-10 can be retired.

Really??

Maybe is time to bring back the US Army Air Corps, give CAS roles and support roles to the US Army Air Corps and let the USAF guys zoom over the battlespace at Mach 2 doing air superiority and strikes.

link

Last time the Army offered to take A-10s off the Air Forces hands, the Air Force had a cow. So I don't see that happening anytime soon…

I think the A-10 should be retired…but only if there is a ground-up dedicated CAS aircraft designed & procured with similar capabilities (hopefully more advanced/efficient, with a bigger warload)…

Damon.

Other than the tank-busting nose cannon, a drone (or drones) can probably do most of what the A-10 can do. Or a turboprop like the Tucano.

Other than the tank-busting nose cannon, a drone (or drones) can probably do most of what the A-10 can do. Or a turboprop like the Tucano.

Doubtful. That tank-busting nose cannon is very effective against enemy in cover, in bunkers, etc. Unless you create an armored CAS drone (that is not gonna get jammed or spoofed) that can carry a similar load out, loiter time and reduced vulnerability to ground fire. But I don't see the USAF proposing that. Maybe US Army needs to push hard for that since USAF is not interested in supporting troops on the ground the way they need to be supported.

Is the USMC supposed to use the F-35 for CAS? The
Marines have been heavily devoted to CAS almost
since the late 1920's.

The F-35 will make do for CAS. Before the A-10, all three services relied on the F-4 and it did just fine.

We did perfectly well in southern Afghanistan when they withdrew the A10s to Bagram. Can't say I missed them and I had plenty of offensive air support. Drones have a much longer loiter time and can't be seen from the ground. Admittedly they lack a strafe option, but most ground commanders prefer precision fires, I used to struggle getting gun runs approved never had a problem with missiles or bombs. The best thing about the A10 is the noise of the gun but that's no reason to keep it. It's just sentimentality, like when we lost the Harrier, everyone was moaning but the Tornado has proved perfectly capable of CAS as will F35 or whatever else flies with weapons on board.

The F-35 will make do for CAS. Before the A-10, all three services relied on the F-4 and it did just fine.

Except the A-10 was specifically designed after the experiences of the F-4 as a CAS aircraft – it was too fast, couldn't loiter long and was vulnerable to ground fire. The US lost 1,737 fixed wing aircraft during the Vietnam war, almost all of them to AAA.

Out of that crucible (and the experiences of the Israelis in the Middle East) the A-10 was born, be a complete exercise in stupidity to think we're over AAA now.

The US lost:
*198 Skyraiders (turboprops)

*280 A-4 Skyhawks

*76 A-6 Intruders

*61 A-7 Corsairs

*529 F-4 Phantoms (your poorly chosen example, the US lost these fighters more than any other type)

*17 B-52s…so flying really high is no guarantee against SAMS

*550 other "F" series fighters – F-5, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-105 D/G, F-111

*Hundreds of other turboprop aircraft like the O-1, O-2, OV-10, etc.

A brutal learning curve. So sure, replace the A-10 with another aircraft, don't ignore the reason it was designed as it was and put into service, and make sure whatever you replace it with can actually do what's needed.

link

The Air Force all want to be the Red Baron. So they want to fly fast fighter planes. As a result they try to make fast fighter planes into ground support aircraft.

The two are not compatible. Ground support planes must be slow, fly low, and have a long loiter time and heavy payload. The need a big cannon to destroy armored vehicles. They need to be heavily armored to protect the pilot.

A fighter needs to fly fast, and carry long and short range missiles. Firing a million dollar missile at a pick up truck is not a good return on investment. It will work for ground support except it is too expensive, too fast, has a short loiter time and will use weapons that are not cost effective.

I support a new Army Air Corp for these reasons.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Just suggest to the top brass that they need to buy more AH if you're that bothered about the Army CAS capability.

The US lost:
198 Skyraiders (turboprops)

*280 A-4 Skyhawks

*76 A-6 Intruders

*61 A-7 Corsairs

*529 F-4 Phantoms (your poorly chosen example, the US lost these fighters more than any other type)

*17 B-52s…so flying really high is no guarantee against SAMS

*550 other "F" series fighters – F-5, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-105 D/G, F-111

*Hundreds of other turboprop aircraft like the O-1, O-2, OV-10, etc.

The wiki data you cited doesn't provide the whole picture because it neglected to include information such as types of mission and total number of sorties flown by aircraft type. The F-4 flew far more missions than the other types listed, not just CAS but CAP, bomber escort and SAM suppression against the most highly advanced and integrated air defense system at the time. In fact, many of the missions were intended to draw SAM's to themselves. So it is not at all surprising that more Phantoms were lost than the other types listed.

The A-10 would be even less survivable in today's threat environment with its slow speed and high radar signature.

Arguing about capabilities for the 2020s, and beyond, using statistics from the 1960s is a bit daft as well.

1. In/over "Yugoslavia" (Kosovo?) aircraft were kept above 16,000' to prevent loss from AAA. From that altitude loss of accuracy made them less effective, doubly so as Rules Of Engagement (ROE) prevented them from bombing some targets for fear of collateral damage. Bombing accuracy has improved, but not strafing from that altitude.
2. In Desert Storm, Tornados flying low altitude runway busting missions took losses from ground fire that forced them to higher altitude.
3. Also in Desert Storm, F-16's were kept at or above 15,000' because "their jet wash kicked up so much dust that it degraded the satellite imaging". (Well that's their story and they're stickin' to it.)
Conclusion: The Air Force will Not risk anything as expensive as an F-35 at low altitude.
3 miles high is Not Close Air Support.
A drone with 2 Mavericks will not halt an armored column.
A pair of fragile AH's with 8 TOWs only might.
A single pass by a GAU-30 can. And the A-10 is probably more survivable than anything but the Skyraider.

As an aside: The AD/A1 Skyraider is a recip not a turboprop. The thing that turns that big propeller is a reciprocating engine, i.e. a "big round motor" with pistons.

Close Air support isn't defined by how close the aircraft is to the target, it's how close friendly forces are, if the aircraft is "3 miles high" but friendlies are 200m from the enemy it's still CAS. Low level attack profiles are not a JTAC specialty any more, most CAS is done from medium level.

The paradigm that effective CAS can only occur at low altitude is outdated.

link

When I did my FAC/JTAC basic course most of the controls were low level, even though most work in theatre was medium level. This was done because low level is the highest pressure and hardest to do, so those unsuitable for FAC work could be weeded out. When I went back a few years later on another course, proper low level (or what I called low level controlling) wasn't even taught anymore.

CAS is evolving. But if you look at history, even the idea of using large strategic bombers in the CAS role isn't particularly new.

link

And yeah, CAS has nothing to do with the proximity of the CAS aircraft to the ground or the soldiers they're supporting and everything to do with how close and accurately ordnance can be placed on the enemy.

We did perfectly well in southern Afghanistan when they withdrew the A10s to Bagram. Can't say I missed them and I had plenty of offensive air support. Drones have a much longer loiter time and can't be seen from the ground. Admittedly they lack a strafe option, but most ground commanders prefer precision fires, I used to struggle getting gun runs approved never had a problem with missiles or bombs. The best thing about the A10 is the noise of the gun but that's no reason to keep it. It's just sentimentality, like when we lost the Harrier, everyone was moaning but the Tornado has proved perfectly capable of CAS as will F35 or whatever else flies with weapons on board.

You know, a friend of mine who as there said he had to call in a gun strike against an area between a compound and a river because he couldn't get bomb/missile or even arty approval.

One BRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP later, about a dozen IEDs have gone boom along ~200 yards of riverfront 'road'.

While I agree that you need to use the right tool for the job, an A10 is as close as you're going to get to unstoppable.

It does have some major problems, though:
1) underpowered. An A10's engines each make 9,000lbs thrust, 18klbs total. But it's a 50,000lb airplane fully loaded! The A10 really needs about twice the installed horsepower.

2) expensive to run because of unique components. Nothing else in the US inventory still uses those engines, which leaves the USAF holding the entire cost of the school. Let's see here… big, high-bypass turbofans… Ah, CFM-56, as used on the P8 Poseidon and a half-dozen other military birds (to say nothing of civilian use!). Though the CFM56 is over twice the weight of the older engines (requiring some creative weight&balance adjustments), putting a pair of high-thrust 56s could allow an A10 to accelerate vertically. While fully loaded!

3) limited spare parts support because the assembly line was demolished in about 1990.

So a new aircraft would need to do all that the A10 presently does and do it cheaper. With the F35 using the 25mm cannon, we could probably drop down to 25mm for the replacement. Lets us use common equipment instead of aircraft-unique.

Let's go ahead and stick a pair of CFM-56-7B engines in there for 27,000lbs thrust each (those are the reduced-fan-diameter ones used on the P8 Poseidon). They're surprisingly quiet and low-IR (plus there are tricks to lower that even more).

The real challenge will be survivability. I don't know how much we can do with composites versus metals. We understand metal stress very well, but composites would allow for at least a little reduction in RCS.

I really hate to say that I don't see a way to improve drone-pilot awareness to the same level as having a pilot there in the plane for the next 20-30 years. At least not without a fully working version of the F35's Distributed Aperture System, which is rather prohibitively expensive. So that means manned.

Now, if we are going to kick the USAF in the groin for COIN aircraft, I'd want to do things a little differently.

It would be a prop-job, but using the engines and props of everyone's favorite tactical transport, the C130. 4500hp, and spare parts are *everywhere*. A pair of 30mm Chain Guns (same weapons as an Apache), a couple .50s of some flavor (and I'm leaning towards tribarrel gatlings). Probably 8-10klbs bombload on top of all the gun ammo.

The USAF was too big for its britches the week after it was born.