Now? So soon... I worry...
If forced to make more cuts, Welsh said he would begin by looking at airplanes restricted to a single mission. He cited as an example the A-10 Warthog, which was developed in the early 1970’s to provide close air support for ground forces.
“The single-mission airplanes are the ones that would get the most scrutiny first,” Welsh said.
His weapons priorities remain the F-35, the KC-46 tanker, which is in development, and a future long-range bomber, he said. “Those three things are fundamental to the future of our air force,” he said.
Long-range bomber=single-mission. Tanker? OK you can haul cargo and personnel with it too.
A-10? Works. Has little failure having done what was asked of it. And, can continue to do so for many more years.
and...
The F-35 “operationally is performing pretty well,” Welsh said.
Hope he gets up to speed or our beloved USAF is in for more trouble.
7 comments:
Long Range Strike - Bomber is potentially a tactical strike aircraft - which could supplant the F-35, and can loiter. B- series aircraft routinely perform tactical missions in A-stan, using the same weapons as F- series aircraft. Perhaps the good general should consider keeping the A-10s and reducing the F-35 buy.
"...the good general should consider keeping the A-10s and reducing the F-35 buy."
Anything that cuts into maximal F-35 Procurement equates to a Program-negative and potential outright threat to Program.
You need to either kill it altogether and move on with a next-gen alternative plan, or max out annual rates. Anything in-between only raises the cost for FMS and Partner buys which has the potential of foreign sales further plummeting and foreign buyers ditching procurement outright. And that of course would only jack up domestic order costs even higher, forcing extra cuts in orders per default.
At some point the capability-gap and gap in requirements and deterrence has to be limited and an alternative plan implemented... even at the cost of primary MIC interests.
"The F-35 'operationally is performing pretty well,' Welsh said."
That right there should tell you that any hopes for positive change have been dashed.
“The single-mission airplanes are the ones that would get the most scrutiny first,”
Pierre Sprey the founder and designer of the F-16 & A-10 aircraft - will have no reaction when he hears Mark Welsh looks at aircraft restricted to a single mission such as the A-10 which would get the most scrutiny first.
The US Air Force tried to kill the A-10 every year that it was in production. And they have tried to kill it at least a dozen times since then.
All Air Forces hate close air support. It's a mission that's a service to the Army. It holds a mirror up to them and reflects back onto them that they cannot win wars by themselves. They still need infantry; those rodents and reptiles with their foul language and trenches and bunkers and 70 ton tanks they like to hide inside, instead of facing the enemy like "real" men.....
The A-10 has always been hated by the USAF. It's too simple, too reliable, too lethal, too survivable, and far, far too affordable. Worse still, it's ugly. Despite this, the US army has managed to persuade the DoD to keep the A-10 for decades despite the adamant opposition of the USAF. I don't see that changing, especially with the pro-infantry anti-bureaucrat Congress in ultimate control of the budget.
Unless the USAF can enlist the US Army's support this proposal will go nowhere. The US Army has too many officers who have experienced the A-10's support and are aware than the F-35 would never come close to matching it.. In any case, very little money would be saved; the A-10 is very inexpensive and the bases from which it operates could not be closed without Congressional approval.
I reckon the US Air Force doesn't understand the fact why supersonic fighters are illsuited for CAS. Indeed it's a mission that's a service to the Army, which holds a mirror up to them and reflects back onto them that they cannot win wars by themselves.
For me I like an aircraft that is simple, very reliable, very lethal, very survivable, longer range, two engines and affordable, which is exactly what you need.
Not an super expensive, less capable, maintenance entensive, unreliable, small weapons load, vulnerable, single engine and short range platform like the F-35 for instance which is totally unacceptable.
Background History
Criticism that the U.S. Air Force did not take CAS (close air support) seriously prompted a few service members to seek a specialized attack aircraft. In the Vietnam War, large numbers of ground-attack aircraft were shot down by small arms, SAMs (surface-to-air missiles), and low-level anti-aircraft gunfire, prompting the development of an aircraft better able to survive such weapons. In addition, the UH-1 Iroquois and AH-1 Cobra helicopters of the day, which USAF commanders had said should handle close air support, were ill-suited for use against armour, carrying only anti-personnel machine guns and unguided rockets meant for soft targets. Fast jets such as the F-100 Super Sabre, F-105 Thunderchief and F-4 Phantom II proved for the most part to be ineffective for close air support, because their high speed did not allow pilots enough time to get an accurate fix on ground targets and they lacked sufficient loiter time. At the time the effective, but aging A-1 Skyraider aircraft was the USAF's primary close air support aircraft proved to be a fantastic aircraft to support the ground troops which the US Army loved the A-1. That's why the A-10 was developed to fulfill the CAS requirements.
Peter
Supersonic fighters can perform CAS role, but not as effective as the A-10, as mentioned before high speed didn't allow pilots enough time to get an accurate fix on ground targets and they lacked sufficient loiter time and they'll likely be shot down if they fly very low AGL of presents of small arms, SAMs (surface-to-air missiles), and low-level anti-aircraft gunfire. Also they are wrapped with fuel around the engine which can easily be penetrated through the skin of the aeroplane and causes to catch on fire and only armed with 20mm M61A1Vulcan cannon which is not as powerful to discriminate tanks etc that previous aircraft didn't perform CAS well back in Vietnam War.
They (supersonic fighters) can only perform two roles interdiction strike and air superiority.
Peter
Post a Comment