Congress looks into restarting the F-22 Raptor

[Penguin]

The A-10 flies too low and slow for any contested environment these days, even small arms fire.
An F-35 can accomplish the mission just as well with precision weaponry in a low intensity conflict, is more effective in a contested environment, and creates less risk to the pilot, though troops they won't get to hear that BRRRT sound... A dedicated CAS plane for low intensity engagements might be better, but frankly we don't need to break the bank on that IMO.

How do you mean 'too slow'?

A-10 Thunderbolt II

• Never exceed speed: 450 knots (518 mph, 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mk 82 bombs
• Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean
• Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
• Stall speed: 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h)

A-29 Super Tucano (USAF Light Air Support program)

• Maximum speed: 590 km/h (319 knots, 367 mph)
• Cruise speed: 520 km/h (281 knots, 323 mph)
• Stall speed: 148 km/h (80 knots, 92 mph)

Textron Airland Scorpion

• Maximum speed: 450 kn (518 mph; 833 km/h)
• Stall speed: 95 kn (109 mph; 176 km/h)

Likewise, the T-6B Texan II, OV-10X, A-37B Dragonfly, Textron Airland Scorpion .
None of which are as heavily armored and made with the same level of system redundancy and ability to absorb damage.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/las.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/laar.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance

 

[madmusti]

 

[volatile]

The A-10 flies too low and slow for any contested environment these days, even small arms fire.
An F-35 can accomplish the mission just as well with precision weaponry in a low intensity conflict, is more effective in a contested environment, and creates less risk to the pilot, though troops they won't get to hear that BRRRT sound... A dedicated CAS plane for low intensity engagements might be better, but frankly we don't need to break the bank on that IMO.

Some how F35 is developing at the moment challeneges which its going to face are no way near to perfect

 

[DavidSling]

Excellent news Production line was shut down way to early imho. I'm all for restarting and making many more with upgrades. Do it Congress!!!

Bring us your F-15 if u won't need them anymore .
on a serious note, I never understood why U.S stopped the program instead of exporting it to it's allys and by that lowering the price

 

[anon45]

How do you mean 'too slow'?

A-10 Thunderbolt II

• Never exceed speed: 450 knots (518 mph, 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mk 82 bombs
• Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean
• Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
• Stall speed: 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h)

A-29 Super Tucano (USAF Light Air Support program)

• Maximum speed: 590 km/h (319 knots, 367 mph)
• Cruise speed: 520 km/h (281 knots, 323 mph)
• Stall speed: 148 km/h (80 knots, 92 mph)

Textron Airland Scorpion

• Maximum speed: 450 kn (518 mph; 833 km/h)
• Stall speed: 95 kn (109 mph; 176 km/h)

Likewise, the T-6B Texan II, OV-10X, A-37B Dragonfly, Textron Airland Scorpion .
None of which are as heavily armored and made with the same level of system redundancy and ability to absorb damage.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/las.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/laar.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance

Too slow for any modern anti-air defence systems.All that armor won't do much against an AAM as well. It was proven in the gulf war against Iraq that the A-10 is not survivable against that, and in an uncontested environment there is no real need for the armor, and something cheaper to fly (like a super Tucano) would better serve us.

 

[Penguin]

Too slow for any modern anti-air defence systems.All that armor won't do much against an AAM as well. It was proven in the gulf war against Iraq that the A-10 is not survivable against that, and in an uncontested environment there is no real need for the armor, and something cheaper to fly (like a super Tucano) would better serve us.

And yet, the USAF is looking for even slower and even less armored light air support aircraft? A-10s are alrerayd bought and paid for, remember... and aircraft like OV-10X and Skorpion are either re- or new development (i.e. involve development cost) . It simply is not an open and shut case. That LAS/LAAR/COIN aircraft are cheaper to operate thant F-16s of F-15s, sure, that even applies for the A-10. However, where are the operating cost studies that show that A-10 is more expensive than the four aircraft I mentioned, two of which aren't even operational?

 

[BoQ77]

Excellent news Production line was shut down way to early imho. I'm all for restarting and making many more with upgrades. Do it Congress!!!

to me, one advantage to restart f22 program originated from achievements of F35 R&D. To make equipments more powerful and cheaper.

 

[anon45]

And yet, the USAF is looking for even slower and even less armored light air support aircraft?

For an uncontested air environment against insurgents wielding ak's and rpgs they would be more than sufficient. For a more contested environment we could just use F-35's.

A-10s are alrerayd bought and paid for, remember... and aircraft like OV-10X and Skorpion are either re- or new development (i.e. involve development cost) . It simply is not an open and shut case. That LAS/LAAR/COIN aircraft are cheaper to operate thant F-16s of F-15s, sure, that even applies for the A-10. However, where are the operating cost studies that show that A-10 is more expensive than the four aircraft I mentioned, two of which aren't even operational?

Yes we've already purchased the A-10's but to my knowledge we've already have contracts for the A-29 as well. I hope the A-10 is replaced as the F-35 comes online

vs the super tucano and scorpion

http://aviationweek.com/defense/first-super-tucano-accepted-us-air-force

the A-29’s historical operating cost is $1,000 per hour; Scorpion’s is advertised at $3,000.

so 11.5 times less and 4 times less.

to me, one advantage to restart f22 program originated from achievements of F35 R&D. To make equipments more powerful and cheaper.

Yes, but that also means a redesign, and much $$$$$ on top of the $$$$$$ being spent. I just don't see it as worth it unless the military budget is expanded to like 5 or 6 percent of gdp. That's not the trend though.

 

[Freyja]

For an uncontested air environment against insurgents wielding ak's and rpgs they would be more than sufficient. For a more contested environment we could just use F-35's.




Yes we've already purchased the A-10's but to my knowledge we've already have contracts for the A-29 as well. I hope the A-10 is replaced as the F-35 comes online

vs the super tucano and scorpion

so 11.5 times less and 4 times less.

OV-10s are being used in Iraq for counter-insurgency purposes, alongside the A-10:

"Supporting US Special Forces operating in Iraq and were most likely directly working with the precursor to what is now called the Expeditionary Targeting Force. This special unit of around 200 operators is tasked with snatching and killing high value targets, freeing hostages, and collecting intelligence to aid the anti-ISIS campaign.

OV-10s performed outstandingly in combat, racking up 134 sorties and 120 combat missions over 82 days while having a 99 percent availability rate."

No word on their operating costs, but the cost of upgrades wasn't too significant:

"In 2012 $20 million was set aside for updating two Broncos. Ten million per aircraft for mechanical refreshing and the latest in radios, sensors and defensive systems seems about right."

For an uncontested air environment against insurgents wielding ak's and rpgs they would be more than sufficient. For a more contested environment we could just use F-35's.

The OV-10s aren't flying in uncontested air space though. As this EP-3E flying near Mosul shows, ISIS does have and has used anti-aircraft weapons:

In this case a Russian d-30 howitzer modified into an anti-aircraft gun:

Those HE shells would need a direct hit to cause damage though, their shrapnel count is very low. So the effectiveness of this setup is questionable, but still threatening.

The OV-10 and A-29 would also be in range of MANPADs, which ISIS and other regional militant groups do have:

But I'm also supportive of using either the A-29 or OV-10 for COIN ops in place of more expensive platforms. Save the F-35 for China and Russia, something else can take up the fight against ISIS.

 

[Penguin]

For an uncontested air environment against insurgents wielding ak's and rpgs they would be more than sufficient. For a more contested environment we could just use F-35's.

And the Taliban doesn't have manpads, I suppose? IIRC Taliban used ZU-23-2, along with the SA-7 or Stinger Missile, as their primary air-defense weapons. Probably also M1939 37mm cannon.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/28/shoulder-fired-missiles-a-threat-to-us-troops-in-afghanistan/

Yes we've already purchased the A-10's but to my knowledge we've already have contracts for the A-29 as well. I hope the A-10 is replaced as the F-35 comes online

On 12 April 2010, Brazil signed a defensive pact that opened negotiations for the acquisition of 200 Super Tucanos by the U.S. On 16 November 2011, the AT-6 was excluded from the LAS Program, effectively selecting the Super Tucano. Hawker Beechcraft's protest against its exclusion was dismissed. However, the contract award was disputed and a stop-work was issued in January 2012.
For this procurement the avionics are to be supplied by Elbit Systems of America. Sierra Nevada, the US-based prime contractor will be building the Super Tucano in Jacksonville, Florida. The 81st Fighter Squadron, based at Moody AFB was reactivated on 15 January 2015 and received the A-29 aircraft and provide training to pilots and maintainers from the Afghan Air Force. Purchased for the Afghan Air Force, all 20 aircraft are planned to be turned over to them in batches by December 2018. Until all the A-29s are turned over to the Afghan Air Force, they will not have a fixed-wing close air support aircraft, but have armed helicopter options. So, just 20 bought by USAF, for transfer to Afghani Air Force.....

vs the super tucano and scorpion
the A-29’s historical operating cost is $1,000 per hour; Scorpion’s is advertised at $3,000.
so 11.5 times less and 4 times less.

A-10

• Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling cannon with 1,174 rounds (Capacity 1,350)
• Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg)
• Operting cost $11,500/hour, Unit cost US$18.8 million (already paid)

A-29B

• Guns: 2× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) 950 rounds per minute FN Herstal M3P machine guns, one in each wing.
  
• Hardpoints: 5 (two under each wing and one under fuselage centreline) with a capacity of 1,550 kg (3,300 lb)
• $430–500/hour (operational cost) unit cost , purchase cost $9–14 million

Scorpion

• Hardpoints: 6 with a capacity of 6,200 lb (2,800 kg), and an internal bay with a 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) = total 4,200kg
• The Scorpion is designed to be affordable, costing US$3,000 per flight hour, with a unit cost expected to be below US$20 million.

If you fly each of these for an hour in combat, which do you think is more effective based on carrying capability? Now add protection and redundancy by design. Here'a nice one for an equation: How many hours will you need to fly to earn back the investment into a new aircraft before is becomes cheaper than the A-10? Wouldn't that be even more when dealing with an aircraft yet to be developed e.g. Boeing OV-10X?

OV-10 inventory United States

• NASA - four aircraft based at NASA Langley Research Center
• Department of State (operated by DynCorp) primarily in Colombia
• United States Air Force - all retired in 1991
• United States Marine Corps - all retired in 1995
• United States Navy - two in evaluation for special operations, USMC 18 loaned in Vietnam for operation by VAL-4.

Armament

One advantage of the OV-10 : you can stick stuff and people in the back.

Armament options proposed for the OV-10X

 

[Stephen Cohen]

USAF and Pentagon know the problems with F 35

This is a good decision

 

[anon45]

And the Taliban doesn't have manpads, I suppose? IIRC Taliban used ZU-23-2, along with the SA-7 or Stinger Missile, as their primary air-defense weapons. Probably also M1939 37mm cannon.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/28/shoulder-fired-missiles-a-threat-to-us-troops-in-afghanistan/


On 12 April 2010, Brazil signed a defensive pact that opened negotiations for the acquisition of 200 Super Tucanos by the U.S. On 16 November 2011, the AT-6 was excluded from the LAS Program, effectively selecting the Super Tucano. Hawker Beechcraft's protest against its exclusion was dismissed. However, the contract award was disputed and a stop-work was issued in January 2012.
For this procurement the avionics are to be supplied by Elbit Systems of America. Sierra Nevada, the US-based prime contractor will be building the Super Tucano in Jacksonville, Florida. The 81st Fighter Squadron, based at Moody AFB was reactivated on 15 January 2015 and received the A-29 aircraft and provide training to pilots and maintainers from the Afghan Air Force. Purchased for the Afghan Air Force, all 20 aircraft are planned to be turned over to them in batches by December 2018. Until all the A-29s are turned over to the Afghan Air Force, they will not have a fixed-wing close air support aircraft, but have armed helicopter options. So, just 20 bought by USAF, for transfer to Afghani Air Force.....



A-10

• Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling cannon with 1,174 rounds (Capacity 1,350)
• Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg)
• Operting cost $11,500/hour, Unit cost US$18.8 million (already paid)

A-29B

• Guns: 2× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) 950 rounds per minute FN Herstal M3P machine guns, one in each wing.
  
• Hardpoints: 5 (two under each wing and one under fuselage centreline) with a capacity of 1,550 kg (3,300 lb)
• $430–500/hour (operational cost) unit cost , purchase cost $9–14 million

Scorpion

• Hardpoints: 6 with a capacity of 6,200 lb (2,800 kg), and an internal bay with a 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) = total 4,200kg
• The Scorpion is designed to be affordable, costing US$3,000 per flight hour, with a unit cost expected to be below US$20 million.

If you fly each of these for an hour in combat, which do you think is more effective based on carrying capability? Now add protection and redundancy by design. Here'a nice one for an equation: How many hours will you need to fly to earn back the investment into a new aircraft before is becomes cheaper than the A-10? Wouldn't that be even more when dealing with an aircraft yet to be developed e.g. Boeing OV-10X?

OV-10 inventory United States

• NASA - four aircraft based at NASA Langley Research Center
• Department of State (operated by DynCorp) primarily in Colombia
• United States Air Force - all retired in 1991
• United States Marine Corps - all retired in 1995
• United States Navy - two in evaluation for special operations, USMC 18 loaned in Vietnam for operation by VAL-4.

Armament

One advantage of the OV-10 : you can stick stuff and people in the back.

Armament options proposed for the OV-10X

Seeing as the number of Tucanos purchased that you provided was only 20 when I thought it was a longer term purchase, I clearly am not up to speed on this and will have to bow out when it comes to the feasability of gradually replacing the A-10 with Super Tucanos or a similar craft.

That said I stand by my initial point that an F-35 would be a more effective CAS (and more used) aircraft in a contested environment,
considering that most CAS support has been done by the F-16 and F-18, and that the F-35 is a successor to those aircraft.

 

[Penguin]

Seeing as the number of Tucanos purchased that you provided was only 20 when I thought it was a longer term purchase, I clearly am not up to speed on this and will have to bow out when it comes to the feasability of gradually replacing the A-10 with Super Tucanos or a similar craft.

That said I stand by my initial point that an F-35 would be a more effective CAS (and more used) aircraft in a contested environment,
considering that most CAS support has been done by the F-16 and F-18, and that the F-35 is a successor to those aircraft.

The Air Force has once again offered up the A-10 for retirement, stating there is no longer enough money to keep single-mission aircraft in the fleet. That's is their rationale. How the A-29B LAS/LAAR is anything but a single mission aircraft in the USAF context, is beyond me (it not being part of the inventory of training aircraft).

The Air Force struggles to argue that the A-10 retirement proposal is not a binary A-10 versus F-35 choice. After last year’s failed attempt to retire the A-10, the service is locked in a campaign to “energize” the discussion, says Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh, toward a future CAS fleet including a bevy of fighters and bombers, not just the F-35.

However, nowhere in this discusssion do we see the light air support aircraft you and I discussed here come up
http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support

 

[C130]

what a mess this has become with the F-22 and F-35

in hindsight wish we would of done something like this

1- buy 400 F-22s even if they cost $200 million a pop, phase out F-15 C/D and F-16 A/Bs
2- buy 500 Advance Tomcats http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142
3. buy 200 FB-111 or FB-22, phase out F-15E and B-1
4. buy 400 OV-10X or Textron Land Scorpions, phase out A-10 Warthog

that would be a pretty potent combination

 

[Malik Alashter]

Those who thinks F-35 is a bad plane are delusional for sure for one reason which is that fighter possess the best technology that America ever reached, But still a one engine fighter and it's multi-rule one so the call for restarting the plant that build the f-22 it's mainly for a fighter that made solely for air dominance.

America isn't poor and they have the money to go for another 200 plane, but the question who would attack a country like the U.S from the two big nation Russia or China I can say it with full confidence none of them will at all make that mistake for some reasons.

Russia don't have neither the money nor the will to involve in such war see as long as Russians left alone they will be busy with their own problems every one has some in home.

Now China is the biggest trade partner with th U.S China wont look to loose this big market of the U.S that pouring money day and night on it's economy and made it the second after the U.S.

the other nations are in no way of getting into a war with U.S in case of Iran they made that nuke deal to get out cold war state now N.Korea with the young man ruling may do something in that region but N.korea isn't that strong with it's obsolete air force.

 

[C130]

OV-10s are being used in Iraq for counter-insurgency purposes, alongside the A-10:

"Supporting US Special Forces operating in Iraq and were most likely directly working with the precursor to what is now called the Expeditionary Targeting Force. This special unit of around 200 operators is tasked with snatching and killing high value targets, freeing hostages, and collecting intelligence to aid the anti-ISIS campaign.

OV-10s performed outstandingly in combat, racking up 134 sorties and 120 combat missions over 82 days while having a 99 percent availability rate."

No word on their operating costs, but the cost of upgrades wasn't too significant:

"In 2012 $20 million was set aside for updating two Broncos. Ten million per aircraft for mechanical refreshing and the latest in radios, sensors and defensive systems seems about right."

The OV-10s aren't flying in uncontested air space though. As this EP-3E flying near Mosul shows, ISIS does have and has used anti-aircraft weapons:

In this case a Russian d-30 howitzer modified into an anti-aircraft gun:

Those HE shells would need a direct hit to cause damage though, their shrapnel count is very low. So the effectiveness of this setup is questionable, but still threatening.

The OV-10 and A-29 would also be in range of MANPADs, which ISIS and other regional militant groups do have:

But I'm also supportive of using either the A-29 or OV-10 for COIN ops in place of more expensive platforms. Save the F-35 for China and Russia, something else can take up the fight against ISIS.

the odds of these rats hitting a OV-10 with AA would be slim to none. I've seen some videos of these rats operating just 1 or 2 at the most ZPU-23s and I have also a few AZP S-60 mostly in the ground to ground role, and as for MANPADS these rats don't have many, and a decent anti-manpad system would be plenty to counter this threat. they aren't operating the most advance manpads with dual-seekers.