The US Air Force has kicked off the procurement for another round of wing replacements for A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, known affectionately by many as the Warthog. With new wings, the A-10s will help fill a gap left by the delayed volume delivery of F-35A fighters, which were intended to take over the A-10's close air support (CAS) role in "contested environments"—places where enemy aircraft or modern air defenses would pose a threat to supporting aircraft. For now, the A-10 is being used largely in uncontested environments, where the greatest danger pilots face is small arms fire or possibly a Stinger-like man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) missile. But the Warthog is also being deployed to Eastern Europe as part of the NATO show of strength in response to Russia.
While the A-10 will keep flying through 2025 under current plans, Air Force leadership has perceived (or was perhaps convinced to see) a need for an aircraft that could take over the A-10's role in low-intensity and uncontested environments—something relatively inexpensive and easy to maintain that could be flown from relatively unimproved airfields to conduct armed reconnaissance, interdiction, and close air support missions. The replacement would also double as advanced trainer aircraft for performing weapons qualifications and keeping pilots' flight-time numbers up.
So, last year the Air Force kicked off the Light Attack Experiment (OA-X), a four-aircraft competition to determine what would best fit that bill.
Related Stories
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
Second pilot ejected and survived, and the crash is under investigation.
On June 22, an A-29 Super Tucano participating in the US Air Force's Light Attack Experiment (OA-X) program crashed while flying over the Red Rio Bombing Range—part of the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. US Navy Lt. Christopher Carey Short, from Canandaigua, New York, died in the crash. Another pilot ejected and suffered only minor injuries.
The Super Tucano, a joint entry into the OA-X program by Brazil's Embraer and Sierra Nevada Corporation, is one of two aircraft designs being tested as part of the second phase of OA-X by pilots attached to the Air Force's 49th Wing at Holloman Air Force Base. The goal of the testing is to determine whether the aircraft matches the Air Force's needs for flying close air support and reconnaissance missions for combat and counterinsurgency in "uncontested environments" (that is, operational areas where the enemy lacks air defenses). Such a niche is currently occupied by the A-10 and other more advanced aircraft.
The flight over the Red Rio range was one of multiple scenario test missions, including close air support, combat search and rescue, and "armed overwatch" (combat reconnaissance). Both the A-29 and the other aircraft being flown in the OA-X tests—the Textron Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine—are turboprop aircraft based on similar versions of Pratt & Whitney's PT6A-68 engine.
[...] The cause of the crash is still under investigation, and no preliminary findings have been released. In a statement, an Embraer spokesperson said, "The SNC/Embraer team is fully cooperating with the USAF in its investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available."
Related: Air Force Tests Two Turboprops as Potential A-10 "Replacements"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:46AM (7 children)
Could we please get some clarification between when we are talking about the A-10 Warthog ground attack plane that Americans use to kill friendly forces like the Brits in Iraq, and some alleged English highway where British murdering perverts leave their victims? Thank you.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:06AM (1 child)
You're just anti-Brrrt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:12AM
Yes, but I am pro-Brexit! England for Anglo-Saxon invaders, I say!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:34AM
And, oh, my apologies! A French Highway in Britain.
"But you're French! What are you doing in England?"
"Go way, or I will taunt you a second thyme! Pffft! Pffft!"
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday June 20 2018, @12:57PM (3 children)
Is there a recent FF incident with British troops I didn't hear about, or are you referring to the discredited USA-Today article that used baked numbers [jqpublicblog.com] to misrepresent the friendly-fire risk of A10 missions?
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:14PM (2 children)
IIRC it was about 10 years ago. I remember that the UK vehicles were marked on the roofs (Orange spot?) and the pilots realised their mistake as they were firing.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:30PM (1 child)
Yeah, fake news with cooked numbers according to revisionist history, then. Remember, the first rule of friendly fire is that it isn't.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:26PM
No, their deaths were not fake news. They were certainly counted among the dead credited to Friendly-Fire from the A-10.
Here are the numbers, in case you care (US and coalition casualties caused by friendly fire, grouped by platform, from 2001 to Feb 2015):
F-18: 98
B-52: 85
F-14: 65
*A-10: 61
F-15E: 53
AC-130: 29
Drones: 17
F-16: 14 (note: retired in 2006)
B-1: 6
Each one of those is a tragedy, and should not be trivialized.
The faked news with cooked numbers was that about 3 years ago the Air Force "leaked" numbers comparing CAS from the A-10 to air support from high-altitude bombers like the B1 in terms of friendly fire and civilian casualties. Its statistics sins included:
* cherry-picking the time period to exclude an egregious civilian casualty incident caused by a high-altitude bomber in 2009
* counting only civilian deaths, and not civilian casualties (bombs throw lots of injury-causing shrapnel, an A10 bullet near-miss generally leaves bystanders unharmed)
* focusing on total number of dead/wounded rather than rate per mission or hours flown (the A10 flies many more CAS missions than the other platforms, and logs more hours in contact per mission)
Amen.
I'd still rather have an A-10 overhead when I call for fire support than a B-52 or an F-18.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:53AM (11 children)
Putting a prop up front impedes visibility. It was justified prior to jet engines because twin-engine planes were expensive and pusher props have numerous issues: hit by ice off the wings, engine overheating, ground strike, etc.
We can and should make a few modest upgrades. Recently, geared turbofans became viable. This increases efficiency. There are new types of armor, so we can make a plane tougher than the A-10, or we can use the weight savings to carry more ammo. We can upgrade the targeting, even tracking shells in flight like the CIWS does.
The general design of the A-10 is excellent.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:48AM (1 child)
You don't see the prop, even looking right through it. Neither does your own radar, or your targeting system, or your FLIR.
As the story points out OA-X wasn't a single aircraft, it was a competition.
There were 4 or 5 contenders but only two made it to the final selection stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance#Finalists [wikipedia.org]
Some of those submissions were Jets. None of the Jets made it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:33PM
A-10 aircraft go into places where they get shot up. You need 2 engines. Yes, there are a few options for twin-engine prop planes (twin-boom like the P-38 or P-61, push-pull like the Cessna O-2 Skymaster, or out on the wings) but nobody is proposing that.
The PW1200G is about right. It is a tiny bit larger and more powerful than what the A-10 had, with excellent fuel economy.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday June 20 2018, @09:12AM (2 children)
Also, look at what they're considering: "AirTractor and L3's AT-802L Longsword; Sierra Nevada and Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano; and Textron and AirLand LLC's Beechcraft AT-6B Wolverine". Holy fsck, a cropduster, an actual military aircraft sourced from Brazil, and a basic trainer. Is this actually the USAF or the Fijian Air Force that's being discussed here when the term "Air Force" is used?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:59PM (1 child)
I definitely hear what you're saying, but it's worth noting that even the human-readable simplified spec that made it into the summary for this competition focuses on robustness and ability to fly from relatively unimproved airstrips. I bet they aren't offering contracts with 10 figures attached for this, either.
We really don't have those as serious design considerations for our supposed pork vendors ... er I mean aerospace design/manufacture contractors here in the USA. It's not sexy to make something dead simple that just works, nor is it necessarily super profitable versus something that barely works but has loads of supposed cutting-edge tech on board (F35).
So I'm not shocked to see a bunch of these options being based on proven airframes from either 2nd-world countries or workhorses like trainers or cropdusters.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:00PM
The wiki link I posted above says that there are only two contenders left.
Both are probably faster than the A10. ;-)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 20 2018, @11:49AM (5 children)
True. The general design of the A-10 is also expensive. This isn't about fielding "the best," it's about fielding "the most."
Sucks to be a grunt, always has, always will.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday June 20 2018, @02:19PM (3 children)
Expensive? Really? My understanding is that it costs only a fraction as much as any of the alternatives proposed so far.
From what I can find the A-10 unit cost is $18.8 million, while it's "replacement", the F-35A has unit costs of $148 million - almost 8x as much.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 20 2018, @02:50PM (2 children)
which (among a myriad of other reasons) is why the F-35 will not be covering the role of the A-10, we need more of them.
I'm not saying that the thinking is clear, or logical, but what is being proposed is a low cost replacement to cover the A-10 role. As with all things in life, maintaining the existing is almost always cheaper than replacement with new - at least for the first several years after replacement. Cost of design/development of a new platform will dwarf any A-10 updating efforts, which is probably a big part of why it is being pursued and lobbied for by all those players who will benefit from the design/development activity through direct employment, advancement of careers, etc.
Personally, I think the B-52 was an excellent example of how a platform could be extended for decades and still be more cost effective than its more modern replacements.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:08PM (1 child)
The problem is also one of having enough A-10s in the theater you need them right now.
They are slow, and fairly large (wing span wise), and its hard to get them to where you need them.
The size of aircraft they are considering could probably fit 4 or 5 in a C5A, especially if they request folding wing tips.
If you plan them for use in areas where all you have to contend with is shoulder arms, you don't have to build as robust as the A10.
And don't discount the possibility that the Air Force might slip Iron Mike in the cockpit and turn it over to the boys in Creech to fly.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:15PM
As I said elsewhere, that's what they really need: 10 expendable drones with all firepower of the gunship but in a much lighter package, instead of one armored and manned gunship.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @04:54PM
Did you include the cost of the pilot? They cost alot and are hard to replace.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:08AM (10 children)
Imagine the F35A for close air support, aka "low and slow"... The only time the F35A is capable of low and slow is on the runway.
Even compared to the other F35s, the F35A is the worst. The F35C has larger wings and is at least capable of going slow enough to land on a carrier, while the F35B can technically go as slow as you want, though only with an empty tank.
Not that the F35 is fast. It's still the slowest fighter plane outside of a museum (it's slower than a Russian White Swan bomber). It's the jack of all trades, master of none.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:26AM (6 children)
Well, if the air space is uncontested, then the enemy obviously doesn't have a lot of game, and army grunts can handle things on the ground by themselves.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:37AM (1 child)
Kinda of the cowardly American approach. I prefer the Browncoats. "We are just too pretty for God to let us die!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @11:32PM
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:56AM (3 children)
And if the airspace IS contested, you can't afford to go slow.
Just because the A10 is slow doesn't mean it is optimum.
Hitting the target while being too fast to be hit your self is far more preferable.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @10:47AM (1 child)
"Too fast to be hit yourself" is a lot faster than "too fast to aim".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:09PM
Too fast for humans to aim.
Hint: Its not 1944 any more.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:05PM
That is what the pilot tub is for.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:40AM
the F35: close air support when you don't *need* close air support.
Perfect for war games and parades!
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @09:55AM (1 child)
I thought F-35s were supposed to have VTOL/loitering in air capability?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @10:04AM
The VTOL version is the F35B, aka the marines version. And it's actually STOVL (short take off, vertical landing) except at airshows, because it can only hover with no weapons or with an empty tank.
F35A (the one discussed here) is the small winged airforce version.
F35C is the larger winged carrier version.
(Score: 2) by aim on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:44AM (10 children)
Looking at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], it looks like the contestants are all re-purposed trainers and light recon planes - even a crop duster (Dusty Crophopper from Planes!), for $DEITY sake! None of these were designed for the purpose at hand, namely loitering over a small-arms infected territory, being able to take the hits, and unloading lots of ammo on the ennemy - lesson supposed to have been learned in Vietnam (where the role was fulfilled mostly by the A-1 Skyraider, and maybe some by the A-4 Skyhawk). Cancel this Air Force program, and let the Army themselves get what they actually need.
On the other hand, with the US management (i.e. current administration) going down the drain, better they go on like this. At some point, the rest of the world may have to forcibly adjust their loser attitude.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday June 20 2018, @09:15AM (2 children)
What about a Shturmovik? That seems to fit their requirements exactly, and it already has a proven track record.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 20 2018, @12:04PM (1 child)
We're headed there... every major wargame simulation that includes economic considerations finds that a massive number of cheap fighting assets easily overwhelms an equivalently budgeted force of more sophisticated fighting assets. All the cheap force needs is enough "boom" to take out the expensive side's armor, and "big boom" is cheap, incredibly cheap if you've got nuclear boom.
With unmanned fighting vehicles now practical, why not send 10 cheap drones instead of 1 stronger vehicle filled with people?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:26PM
Exactly.
I can easily envision turning whichever of these planes wins the competition into a drone, "manned" remotely.
Get them cheap enough that you don't break the bank when some get shot down, and put the pilots in a cargo container (or E-8C JSTARS) somewhere near enough that you don't need that much of a CNC network.
There are already hints of this repurposeing of E-8Cs [defensenews.com] in the press ahead of (of just after) their scheduled replacement in 2024.
E-8Cs are not seen to be survivable in contested airspace (any where in europe) these days. But for places like the Middle East, you could remotely fly 5 or 8 small hard hitting ground attack aircraft from just over the horizon.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 20 2018, @11:54AM (1 child)
What they actually need is a drone, probably a drone just robust enough to carry a few gatling guns like puff [wikipedia.org] and take a few hits.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:42PM
Drones, yes.
But A10s are predominantly tank buster, and their gatling guns are mostly shooting armor piercing rounds, at light armored vehicles or pickup trucks.
Nobody is expecting these to be used against massed ground troops.
When ISIS was on the prowl (and Obama letting them run wild), that was as close to massed ground troops as you are likely to see.
Especially after the Highway of Death, [jalopnik.com] nobody with a lick of sense would bunch up that many troops and vehicles without a strong air cap, unless they knew in advance they were immune from attack.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Wednesday June 20 2018, @02:31PM
Our new space force will pick up the slack. We'll shoot em from our space ships.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:09PM (2 children)
That's starting to sound like the Bradley [youtu.be].
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:43PM (1 child)
Seriously, you post a link to a two hour video?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:18PM
If you haven't seen it, it's worth the time when you've got 2 hours to spare.
I'm assuming that more than one reader is familiar with the epic saga...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday June 21 2018, @08:02AM
But letting the army have their own wings will tear an unrepairable hole in both time and space...
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @10:01AM (1 child)
I mean, the design itself is solid from what I understand.
There's a lot of things where the left and right have been specifically designed to be interchangeable, so you can store less parts.
Its supposedly able to take a heap of damage, and has been designed that way, placement of the engines, armored cockpit etc.
Is there anyone on the ground.. er including the pilots and maintenance crew who *don't* like it?
Surely the base design could be upgraded with newer materials, engines, avionics etc to create a lighter, faster, even tougher version than the original?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 20 2018, @11:56AM
Turbine / turbofan engines are incredibly expensive, often more expensive than the airframe+avionics of the aircraft they power. Turboprops are a step toward more economical power.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Revek on Wednesday June 20 2018, @12:27PM (4 children)
Its was perfectly engineered and has a long life span. Still pretty cheap to maintain and finally extremely effective. Its keeping these air craft manufacturers from selling more shit we don't need. So of course it has to go.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 4, Informative) by Spook brat on Wednesday June 20 2018, @01:47PM (3 children)
Oh, no; Air Force brass hates it too.
It doesn't fit their idea of a "sexy" airframe, and they didn't want to buy it in the first place. [dtic.mil] Close air support is a mission that the Air Force doesn't want to do right, and won't let the Army do for itself.
On top of all that, since the Air Force is doubling down on the F-35 they're using the cost overruns in that project to justify mothballing the A-10 in the name of saving money; Congress has already called Bravo Sierra on that. [jqpublicblog.com]
So far, the Air Force has been caught and called out on inappropriately suppressing positive media reports on the A-10, [jqpublicblog.com] as well as asserting that testifying truthfully to Congress is treason [military.com] (a general got fired over that one).
I expect that this charade will go on pretty much forever. The Army will always need Close Air Support, the Air Force may never want to actually do it right, and as long as there are members of congress who have served in the Army the A-10 will keep performing that mission until something legitimately better comes along.
PS - looking forward to the CAS head-to-head between the A-10 and the F-35, [military.com] if it ever happens. The Air Force is already spinning; they know the F-35 is going to lose, and so they're again trotting out long-debunked claims [jalopnik.com] that the A-10 isn't survivable in the modern battlespace. Good luck, flyboys, you'll need it.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday June 21 2018, @08:41AM (2 children)
So let me get this right. The USAF refuses to buy what's needed, and won't fly the CAS missions needed. Meanwhile the US Navy no longer knows how to navigate and steer on water. It makes me wonder, what's the US army up to?
I'd make fun of it all, except we're on the buyers list of F35s too, and have been known to fly the swastika while on mission. *sigh*
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Thursday June 21 2018, @01:51PM (1 child)
Yeah, that's about right. Army has its own set of issues, as JoeMerchant pointed out. [soylentnews.org] [1] You should read the stories about how top Brass in the Army tried to block adoption of the M-16 and the resulting problems with the early models.
We just use the acronym SNAFU liberally, and drive on :P
[1] For those not willing to watch a 2-hour Cary Elwes movie, a) shame on you; b) early versions of the Bradley troop transport/fighting vehicle used aluminum armor which burned to produce toxic gas when hit with an anti-armor round, helpfully poisoning any occupants who weren't killed by the round itself.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Friday June 22 2018, @02:33AM
That aluminium armor sounds about as clever as the design-by-committee light & agile troop transport down here which ended up with so much armor and redundancy that it was neither light nor agile and thus not suited to any of the operating theaters it was supposedly targeted at. Don't know if it ended up actually delivered or not, but there was enough of a stink to make the news down here.
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Wednesday June 20 2018, @02:40PM (1 child)
So we're going to replace one of our most effective and beloved jets with a Cessna. Makes perfect sense. Won't even be that difficult to train people. What's that? You took a flying lesson in a Cessna 172? Well this is the same thing but with light weapons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:44PM
Cessna actually did put out a fairly successful light ground attack aircraft used during Vietnam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_A-37_Dragonfly [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday June 20 2018, @02:46PM (2 children)
Sounds like the ideal plane would have minimal or no electronics, with maintenance needs designed for a limited industrial economy, proven to be cheap, reliable, and effective over a number of years. In other words, an old design from a time when we actually operated in contested airspace. Probably something that flew in Vietnam. I wonder what aircraft fits that description...
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:13PM (1 child)
Not the F4... that was one design that definitely was better off retired - great in its day, but awful.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @04:14PM
A-1 Skyraider
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:04PM
As soon as it survives this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg [wikipedia.org]