
Air Force tests two turboprops as potential A-10 “replacements” - rbanffy
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/air-force-tests-two-turboprops-as-potential-a-10-replacements/
======
beat
Part of the problem is the missions the Pentagon imagines itself in, versus
the missions they wind up in. Dreaming of fighting a high-tech peer is one
thing, but we've spent 15 years needing close air support for ground troops
under fire from irregular infantry who are themselves in light vehicles or
under minimal fortification (ie behind rocks or in regular buildings). And
when your weapon for that is a single high-end bomb from a plane that costs
tens of millions of dollars and is flying too fast to actually see the
battlefield... well, that's a recipe for ineffective air support, collateral
damage, and friendly fire deaths, not to mention some outrageous costs and a
lot of air time on planes that cost a lot to maintain.

But another problem with American policy is a need to keep American casualties
to a minimum, to the point of being the overriding directive.

So from a combat perspective, a good solution is light, low-cost planes that
can fly from very rough airstrips close by, armed with a light cannon that can
shred buildings, light armor, and other low-intensity cover, and fly slow
enough to make in-the-moment decisions from visual inspection by a human
pilot. But such a plane is a tempting target for inexpensive, widely available
shoulder-fired missiles, or even old-fashioned flak. And then casualties go
up. This isn't WWII anymore. America won't tolerate high casualty rates
politically for problems that are not existential threats to our nation.

And a cheap low-tech plane solution also has to slot in somewhere between
drones (expensive but effective), and the helicopter gunships that have had
the mission since Vietnam.

So instead, we're going to keep using hammers to swat flies, because we might
need hammers against Russia someday and we're rich anyhow.

~~~
golergka
> Part of the problem is the missions the Pentagon imagines itself in, versus
> the missions they wind up in. > So instead, we're going to keep using
> hammers to swat flies, because we might need hammers against Russia someday
> and we're rich anyhow.

It's the basic game theory: you have to be prepared in wars you don't want to
happen, exactly because you being prepared for them prevents it.

Preventing conflict by developing ways of measuring outcome of a potential
conflict without actually acting it out is a technique that's been used by
animals way before humans came along.

~~~
beat
Mutual Assured Destruction has been more effective than high-tech planes at
preventing wars between major powers.

~~~
golergka
MAD prevented a full-on nuclear war. Fighter planes and other high-tech
equipment have helpved preventing proxy wars in a lot of hot regions around
the globe.

~~~
beat
We've been in proxy wars pretty much nonstop since MAD became a thing.

~~~
golergka
This is true, but in no way contradicts or disproves my point.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Well, it makes it seem that "preventing" means something different to you than
it does to me.

Perhaps you could clarify your point a bit?

~~~
golergka
There are a lot more of proxy countries that don't go to active war and act
out conflicts in a diplomatic manner – but you almost always don't notice
these situations. Appealing to proxy wars that do happen is a survivorship
bias.

------
greedo
People will chime in about how the AF only likes shiny new fast jets, but the
issue is not infatuation. The AF has to plan to perform against near peer
opponents with good air defense systems, fighters, etc. So they'll usually be
force by this into choosing something that is overkill for blowing up huts in
Afghanistan. A small turboprop sounds great for low cost flight hours etc, but
put it up against any modern AD and it's toast. You can try to mitigate this
problem by having a high/low mix, (F15/F16), but that doesn't save you much
money, and the AF has seen that the high usually ends up getting whacked for
the low, and then ending up with lower performance. The Navy had the same
problem with the F-14/F-18 mix. The F-18 was "good enough" for low intensity
combat, but is inadequate for many other deployments.

~~~
lujim
It absolutely kills me to argue against the F-14 especially after reading that
every single one of them were turned into scrap to keep parts out of Iran.
However... Tomcats had a long full life, were maintenance hogs, and had
outlived their mission. Ouch, it hurt to write that, but it's probably true.
The Rhino's (Super Hornets) are very capable.

~~~
sandworm101
The f14s mission went away. If you are worried about a sophisticated opponant
attacking your carrier, a heavy fighter-interceptor is no longer a defense
against modern missiles. It was a great plane for a job that no longer exists.

If you are really into weapon history, the Phoenix missile was originally
meant for an airforce super interceptor, think an armed version of the SR-71.
It was meant to shoot down Valkyrie-class supersonic bombers carrying nuclear
weapons. That scenario never developed, but the navy took the missile for blue
water battles defending carriers. Arguably, the f-14 was only so big and
powerful because it needed to haul a radar capable of servicing the missile.
Phoenix was never useful in mixed environments where friendlies might be in
range because that wasn't part of the original intention. It was meant for
killing big/fast things approaching in open sky, not picking out Migs over
Syria.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
It didn't help that it's flagship weapons system was made obsolete by
politics.

~~~
lujim
It was interesting to read on the F-14 Wikipedia page that Iraqi pilots would
often completely avoid engaging with Iranian Tomcats. Just the threat of the
AIM-54 was enough to maintain air superiority.

"They performed well, but their primary role was to intimidate the Iraqi Air
Force and avoid heavy engagement to protect the fleet's numbers. Their
presence was often enough to drive away opposing Iraqi fighters. The precision
and effectiveness of the Tomcat's AWG-9 weapons system and AIM-54A Phoenix
long-range air-to-air missiles enabled the F-14 to maintain air superiority"

------
protomyth
At this point, I wish that the fixed wing close air support mission would
revert back to the Army. The F-35 is never going to be able to fill that role,
and the Air Force seems really reluctant to devote any resources to the
mission. The ability of the A-10 to linger in the area is not matched by any
potential replacement.

~~~
ansible
Agreed. Attack helicopters plus some fixed-wing assets with long loiter give
plenty of flexibility for various kinds of CAS missions. And all this should
really belong to the Army (and Marines [1]) instead of the Air Force, which
desperately wants to stay high, fast and stealthy.

[1] And the entire DoD needs to re-think about how and why we're usually
deploying Marines on land, for typical land-based missions that are the main
remit of the Army.

------
curtis
Currently there is an agreement between the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army [1]
that the air force will control most fixed-wing aircraft and the army most
helicopters. I think this is completely dumb and should be dispensed with
right away. The air force could then relinquish the A-10s and any future
ground support aircraft like (hypothetically) the Super Tucano to the Army if
the Army cares to pay for it.

This would help ameliorate the current situation where the Air Force seems
compelled to try to cancel every airplane that's not the F-35.

[1] Apparently this originates in the "Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966" \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-
McConnell_agreement_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-
McConnell_agreement_of_1966)

------
usermac
I recall being on a weekend drill, camping and during the day we had A-10's
flying low overhead, fast. I could see them looking up past the pine tree
cover above us. Someone then told me it was just one A-10!

~~~
jessaustin
They've trained above our farm for decades. I would be surprised if there were
"just one". They typically have a two-plane echelon, with the trailing "wing"
separated by a fair distance. I suspect this formation allows the wing to
respond when the leader draws ground fire.

------
mmusson
I think the crucial problem is that the cost is borne by the Air Force but the
benefit goes to other branches. This is a classic externality in reverse.

------
yobroprogram
I will support the most extravagant and unnecessary new aircraft program the
MI complex wants to push forward, PROVIDED that the resulting machines stay
exclusively on US soil and in US airspace. Versus immediately being sent
thousands of miles away to defend Israel, Europe, Japan and/or South Korea.

------
petard
Somehow it very much resembles German's Stuka WWII fighter plane, both in
appearance and role.

~~~
erdewit
The very old Russian Su-25 looks very similar too and still seems to be doing
well in the Syrian skies.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25)

------
MaupitiBlue
Why doesn’t the Army consider a “regional-turboprop” gunship? Something 1/3
the cost, and requiring 1/3 - 1/2 the crew, of an AC-130?

The don’t need the howitzers, just a couple of M61’s and a couple of the
rocket pods.

------
SteveCoast
Maybe we could use John Boyd spinning in his grave as a kind of power source
to reduce costs?

------
gau3avenger
Nothing can replace the A-10. Just make more of them. The more the better.
A-10 saves the day baby. <3<3

~~~
JackCh
The GAU-8, everybody's favorite reason to love the A-10; the autocannon the
A-10 was built around, is obsolete. 30x173mm can no longer kill what it was
meant for killing, and what it's _actually_ killing in practice today can be
killed just as well by 25x137mm.

If you built a new plane around a GAU-12 you'd get pound for pound more
killing. Lighter smaller ammo means more of it, and trust me 25mm will kill
anything you might plausibly be killing with 30mm in this century.

Don't worry though, I'm pretty sure the USAF is too arrogant to actually adopt
a turboprop airplane, so the A-10 will likely be with us for the foreseeable
future...

~~~
avoutthere
> 30x173mm can no longer kill what it was meant for killing

The GAU-8 can no longer kill top-line Russian armor? Source?

~~~
amorphid
The GAU-8 was designed to punch thru 76mm armor at 300 meters. [1] The Russian
T-90 tank has armor thicker than 500mm. [2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90)

~~~
jacquesm
For a bit I thought you might have used the wrong leading digit but it's true:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-
YaJw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-YaJw)

~~~
amorphid
Not directly related, but I recently enjoyed this video comparing the latest
models of the USA Abrams & Russian T-90 in a tank battle smackdown.

~~~
amorphid
Forgot link to video =>
[https://youtu.be/nnJCYK2F2N0](https://youtu.be/nnJCYK2F2N0)

------
jpitz
tl;dr : Replacements in mostly uncontested deployments, with a focus on a
relatively inexpensive and easy to maintain aircraft, with additional roles as
recon and trainer aircraft. NOT an all-out fleet replacement for the Warthog.

~~~
greedo
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. None of the replacements (nor the A-10)
are survivable in an area protected by fighters or modern SAMs. In the 80's,
A-10s were expected to last less than a few weeks in Germany had the balloon
gone up.

~~~
masklinn
That seems fine considering all the wars the US has fought in the last 50
years or so have been ridiculously asymmetrical. The USAF has to prepare for a
war against technologically equivalent countries, but it also needs to do a
much better job at preparing for the wars _it 's actually fighting right now_.

~~~
greedo
Ah, I think the USAF is doing a fine job with what it's been dealt with. It's
made a few procurement decisions that have been a bit questionable, but much
of that was driven more by the Executive Branch than the Pentagon.

Airpower is really quite limited. Boots on the ground will always be required,
and that's something the US has grown tired of providing.

