 |
| Pic and background on the failed A-16 experiment via F-16.net. |
via F-16.net
The Block 60 did not go into production and the A-16 became wrapped up in the debate about close air support. The supporters of the A-16 project wanted the USAF to replace its A-10A Thunderbolt IIs with A-16's, arguing that the A-10 was too slow to survive above a high-tech battlefield. Detractors argued that the A-16 had insufficient range and load-carrying capability to make an effective attack aircraft, and, in addition, it would be too vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire.And fast forward to today...via Washington Post...
The Army argued that the Key West agreement of 1948 (under which they were prohibited from operating fixed-wing combat aircraft) was now obsolete, and that the USAF's A-10's should be turned over to them for use alongside AH-64 Apache helicopters. In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10A's and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.
However, all of these plans came to naught on November 26th, 1990, when the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10 aircraft for the CASmission. No order for the A-16 was ever placed.
Close-air support (CAS) is carried out by a variety of aircraft, including helicopters, the A-10 and fighter jets like the F-15E Strike Eagle and the F-16 Fighting Falcon. As the A-10 is retired, the Air Force will tap some fighter squadrons to primarily be close-air support units, and move A-10 pilots to them.Read the entire story here.
“We’re going to take those aviators, and we’re going to have designated predominantly CAS squadrons in the F-15s and the F-16s, and eventually in the F-35,” Carlisle said. “We want those CAS expertise to go to those squadrons that are dedicated to CAS to keep that expertise, that knowledge base, that culture alive.”
Just wow.
We've tried this non-sense before but it seems like institutionally the USAF and the Army/Marines just don't remember.
Sad. Real sad.
As far as i remember the problem with this concept was too much vibration from gun pod.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dstorm.eu/pictures/nose-arts/f-16/usa/79-0404_1.jpg
The primary problem is the F-16 and other jets is they are fast movers, they can't loiter for as long, they can't go slow with the same level of agility.
ReplyDeleteThen there are the rest of the feature deficiencies.
- Lower protection for the pilot. No titanium tub, cockpit glass is not as thick.
- No dual redundancy on flight systems, no mechanical redundancy i.e. not hydraulic.
- Gas tanks not separated from engines. i.e. engines are out board on A-10.
- A10 can takeoff/land at austere locations
Nothing can be an A10, the air force is irresponsible not to develop a follow on version of the A10.
It's a flying tank, it's not a fast mover, and it's the infantryman's best friend in a fire fight.
Actually, lots of other countries use the F-16 for ground support. The US just wants that little extra.
ReplyDeleteI know of a few advantages an F-16 has in CAS, it's thrust/weight ratio is fairly high, so it can actually "transit to operational height" faster after a bombing or strafing run. It's counter-intuitive, you have to think in terms of "energy". Flying high, an aircraft has a high energy state with lots of potential energy. After a dive, it has lots of kinetic energy but low PE. So basically, to a pilot, energy state = options. Trade height for speed or speed for height.
ReplyDeleteBut in a strafing run, you have to dive *and* slow down to strafe, so your fighter ends up with very low energy states, slow and low. F-16s usually just hit the afterburners to build up energy faster.
I was wondering why they were using the F-16s in CAS the one time I eyeballed an airstrike, this was the answer. Afterburners.
Their are alot of countries who have F-16's that they use for CAS on top of Air defense.
ReplyDeleteYes.. and can , normally, afford it!
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at this I ask myself also: why not. Switching A-10 to F-16 does not save money... so why not have this little, or maybe actually quite a lot, extra capability this plane gives ?
Kinda ironic, the F-16 is THE other plane that showed how a no- nonsense approach to design can be very successful, like the A 10 does.
Canuck is right. You end up dropping higher to stay out of AAA with an F-16, and sometimes you need to get down in the weeds to do things right. F-16's are great to take pictures in front of for your mom, but for CAS if I had a choice between the Warthog and the F-16 I would pick the Warthog. F-15 would be better than the F-16; it is a much more stable weapons platform, but A-10 is best.
ReplyDeleteA future Joint Ground Strike Fighter program perhaps ? The JGSF-A15? Quiet a mouthful but it could happen. And it all depends on how and where do America's next enemies pop up from. Solomon's right in saying that everyone is considering Desert and Mountain terrain and other terrains and their specific requirements and limitations are not getting discussed. What is considered a suitable ground attack aircraft keeping in mind limitations of the Pacific will be different from what is considered a suitable ground attack aircraft for other terrains.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to venture a guess the Pacific oriented Ground Attack Aircraft will have a huge big priority for operation range and weapons range if the Navy's "increasing standoff range" goal is to be believed. In that case it wont be a ground attack plane in the conventional sense but an F-35ish ordinance dispenser with even more expensive long range weapons. But one can be certain that no one is going to design an Aircraft keeping an Anti-Tank gatling gun as its main focus area.
Dr Davidson did not write that article, she simply runs the blog where it was published. The article was written by a Major Fernandes, US Army.
ReplyDeleteShe is the publisher, not the writer.
ReplyDeleteBig OOPS on my part. You're right. She's the blog author; not the writer of the piece in our attention.
ReplyDeleteConsider what would happen if opponents have heat seeking MANPAD. Burners make you a juicy target for a heat seeking missile.
ReplyDeleteI think US has a bit distorted reality as they haven' t been operating in contested airspace since...probably WWII?
Ukraine loses should serve as a good example but it seems nobody is paying any attention
So basically... hidden in this statement by Carlisle, is that besides the A-10 capacity being removed from USAF's TACAIR force structure - as a miscalculated result of staying the course on the F-35 roadmap - additional F-16 and F-15 squadrons (and aviators) currently tasked/trained in multi-role deterrence and capability will be removed from force structure as they switch over to the CAS role.
ReplyDeleteThat is, TACAIR force structure will become even more hollow, per default of staying the course on the miscalculated F-35 acquisition/recap roadmap - more than merely seeing A-10s prematurely removed from the force structure, etc.
Unless there is a contingency not commented on or included in Carlisle's public statements, that the current 'multi-role' aviators operating F-16s and F-15s will be retained...and continue training on and operating the same (shared) aircraft platforms also receiving transferred A-10 aviators? That is, enabling the same platforms to operate as flexible (swing-role) tactical tools and be employed with equal specificity, depending on a particular mission, by way of swapping in one specially trained crew for another, on demand??
If not, the real story in this piece would appear to be the ever increasing (incrementally year-over-year, it seems) capability-gap being created per default of the going F-35 Program concern.
In that case, you can send a letter to most air forces in the world telling them that. I'm not talking about theory, this is actual ops procedure, and a fairly international one.
ReplyDeleteAs for "scary MANPADs" look at a rifle company's orbat and see how many MANPADs are there. Or an armour company's orbat. I'll tell you how many. None. Air defence equipment are concentrated into specific ADA units. You don't get them too often on the front line, they are usually further back guarding C4I nodes.
I find the statement that F-15 is better strange. In a mixed force, even with F-15s, it was the F-16s that did my strike. Maybe they were reserving the F-15s for top cover, but we really need more in depth information, i.e inside the Air Force's planning rooms, pilot's POV etc to make the call. Just looking at info sheets does not give you anything but false information.
ReplyDeletelol you think? You were probably not around when the chaos of the F-20 vs the F-16 happened. :) It was a mess.
ReplyDeleteAmerica fighted in contested airspace until vietnam.
ReplyDeleteManpads, in potential US allies, are concentrated ADA units... but absolutly not in US allies.
Plus this is negated by the range of modern sams... it's not hard to kkep CI and ADA units at less than 200km from frontline...
You are right about just looking at the sheets.
ReplyDeleteMy comment is based on personal opinion, and I don't have too much experience in either the F-15 or F-16, just a half dozen or so flights each and that mostly air-to-air sorties with a bit of air to ground on the side. My background was Navy, FA-18, A-7, but also flew many other aircraft that are air-to-ground (two tours in flight test and weapons test, instructor at Navy Test Pilot School). I was not a fan of the F-16 side stick for air to ground, and the F-16 is not as stable, gets tossed around more in thermals when you are close to the deck, etc. Also I am not a fan of angle of attack limiter, which the F-16 has; having limiters can get you in trouble. Believe it or not I once beat an F-16 in a horizontal scissors while I was flying a MIG-21 because the guy got stuck on his angle of attack limiter and I just stood the old MIG up on it's burner and got behind him. The MIG is a pig and this should never happen; the limiter was something I could exploit as an opponent. I could see how you might get yourself in trouble on an air to ground mission when you are only a voting member and the computer knows best.
The F-15 is more stable down low, you have better pipper control, and there is no American aircraft I have flown that has more power to get you out of any hole you might dig yourself into. It is an amazing machine, either for air to ground or air to air.
Air to ground should have primary preference, as on the ground is where wars are truly won, and aircraft should be assigned accordingly, but it seems that it doesn't work that way in real life.
You are a juicy target for MANPAD with or without burner; burner is just a glass of wine with the steak. The solution to MANPAD is dropping from up high, stand off weapons, countermeasures, or just being a quick, sneaky bugger. Or of course send in the drones and let some guy sipping coffee in Syracuse drop for you.
ReplyDeleteAround... depends on the definition, I'm from '73. I have read about the woes of the F20.
ReplyDeleteBut I am not talking about politics, I am talking about design. The f-16 started as a relatively simple plane, with one mission and no frills. All the multirole abilities came later.
And the irony of that was the F-15 was marketed as the premium air-to-air platform. Think their slogan was something like "not a pound for air to ground?". I heard an australian pilot describe it as having "monsterous engines", huge things compared to other aircraft.
ReplyDeleteProblem with drones as a shooter is that the signal to fire has a ~2 second lag. You were ex-Navy, you ever used an encrypted radio unit and receiver side by side? The lag is noticable, and in the field, you might end up shooting at something that isn't already there. Or have someone blow your drone up before it can release. Drones are ok for "permisable" environments, not so hot for areas where everyone can shoot at you.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the A-10 is an excellent CAS platform, and I'm absolutely in favor of retaining it until a dedicated replacement is built. We are fools to think that our days of fighting low-tech counterinsurgencies are over.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I have heard not one convincing argument against the Air Force's primary aargument: that it is unsurvivable in a modern battlespace. So A-10 proponents here: explain the A-10's role in a China conflict. Explain its role in a Russia conflict. Explain how this platform will be able to effectively provide CAS while not suffering a 50% loss rate in a future conflict. Because my bet is that Air Force leaders are looking at this platform and saying "The A-10 does CAS really good, but it's dogmeat against a modern adversary. The F-16 can do CAS ok, but it can survive against advanced threats that the A-10 can't. We must therefore retire the A-10 since keeping the F-16 preserves the CAS option in both high-end and low-end conflicts." Someone here rebutt that logic.
Also, for a preview of how the USAF forsees fixed and rotary wing CAS assets fairing in a modern fight look at the Ukrainian Air Force losses against Russia.
There is now an A-X program to take CAS off the F-35's hands.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/03/06/no-decision-on-a10-follow-new-aircraft/24514011/
Carlisle: No Decisions on A-10 Follow On
WASHINGTON — A weeklong summit on the close-air support (CAS) mission did not lead to any major decisions about a next-generation replacement for the A-10, the head of Air Combat Command told reporters March 6.
However, the service will continue to look into options for what Gen. Hawk Carlisle referred to as an "A-X" system, including the possibility of choosing an existing plane like the Textron Scorpion jet to fill gaps in the "low-end" CAS realm.
We already found this out with the A16 too. Amazing.
ReplyDeleteHe was right; it is wonderful for both missions, my opinion.
ReplyDeleteTrue; you are right on that. Only, it is better to have a drone shot down or miss than have a pilot burned alive in an orange jump suit. Depends on the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteIt will be doubtful if USAF is ever able to truly afford more than say 25x F-35A units in a single FY budget. With more prudent and realistic revisions to requirements and recalculations coming into the public discourse, of what can actually be budgeted in a give year (while in austere budget environments going forward, since FY10), etc, it seems as if UCAV systems, low-end CAS, along with stand-off munitions, upgrades to existing aviation and of course LRS-B and tankers will result in drastically chopped USAF's annual F-35A buy rates. Originally expected 'estimates' and advertised annual buy rates of USAF's F-35A variants never really showed evidence of being sustainable or realistic.
ReplyDeleteTitanium tub and dual redundancy or not, you simply don't want to be flying your A-10 at low-and-slow profiles doing CAS work in a modern war, let alone in a sustained anti-insurgency operation sometime in the future. There's just too much risk of proliferation of advanced MANPADS systems and other advanced short range air defenses which would make such tactics futile and not practical in the future. The future of 'CAS' will increasingly be done at higher altitudes and with precision guided munitions and even stand-off munitions. Integration of ATDIRCM-type systems and other counter-measures would add survivability. CAS will further be reliable and achieved with unmanned air vehicles which can loiter with better cost-effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteAdd the "Next-Gen TacAir" program and you'll see that there is simply not enough money for everything. I doubt another aircraft selection program is in the works. That takes money too. Unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute - the B-1 has a lower operating cost than the B-52?
ReplyDelete