A-10 vs B1

[Pilot Fighter]

I guess I'm curious as to what mission the B1 can perform that couldn't be performed equally well by strapping a bunch of ordinance on to whatever aerial dumptruck is available. Like, yes, it's very COOL, but what's it FOR? Is it really survivable enough to do low level penetration against modern air defense?

High-speed, low-level, pretty good EW - that's a good start. On the other hand, with the A-10 you need uncontested ingress/egress, air superiority close to the battle, and the most serious AA threats addressed before it can be much help to the guys on the ground.

My question is, what advantage does the Bone have over the F-15E?

 

[MikeD]

I guess I'm curious as to what mission the B1 can perform that couldn't be performed equally well by strapping a bunch of ordinance on to whatever aerial dumptruck is available. Like, yes, it's very COOL, but what's it FOR? Is it really survivable enough to do low level penetration against modern air defense?

Ever since the B-1 lost its nuke mission under the START treaty (which was all it was designed to do), it has adapted in the conventional world to a bomb truck that can either penetrate air defenses and go downtown to hit targets interdiction-style, much like a large F-111; or have extreme loiter time to hang out in permissive airspace and drop bombs for in support of ground troops or other targets. Whereas fighters need to rotate to tanker aircraft and have much limited amounts of ordnance.

It still has a very good defensive suite for evading/jamming enemy defenses in a heavy IADS environment, and the DSO crewman earns his keep there. Over Afghan, where it's just a loitering bomb truck, the DSO has more a support role to the OSO, so as not to completely be a Maytag Repairman.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

It still has a very good defensive suite for evading/jamming enemy defenses in a heavy IADS environment, and the DSO crewman earns his keep there.

Did they finally upgrade the AN/ALQ-161? I hope so, there's not going to be enough Growlers to go around. The Navy is pushing for additional Growlers, increasing squadron size from five to eight aircraft. We'll see. Even with eight per squadron, will that be enough to support the Navy and AF? Many wise folks have concerns.

 

[MikeD]

Did they finally upgrade the AN/ALQ-161? I hope so, there's not going to be enough Growlers to go around. The Navy is pushing for additional Growlers, increasing squadron size from five to eight aircraft. We'll see. Even with eight per squadron, will that be enough to support the Navy and AF? Many wise folks have concerns.

I'd have to ask a B-1 guy what their upgrades are. In 2005, on that accident investigation I did for one of them, I received a detailed briefing on them, but can't remember the defensive stuff as it was outside the scope of what I was there to do at the time, and has probably been upgraded since then.

USMC is still flying the Prowlers....they take most of them from the USN? So there's them too, I suppose.

In terms of B-1 vs F-15E, I'd say probably range and payload for the interdiction mission, and loiter/payload for CAS mission. -15E is more capable though to see targets visually in the CAS arena, and has more overall flexibility, as well as being able to defend itself air-to-air, of course, or go on the offense that way too.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

USMC is still flying the Prowlers....they take most of them from the USN? So there's them too, I suppose.

Right now things are still headed in the other direction. The plan is to dump the Prower in 2019 and they just made VMAQ-1 the new RAG, leaving only three expeditionary squadrons.

 

[MikeD]

Right now things are still headed in the other direction. The plan is to dump the Prower in 2019 and they just made VMAQ-1 the new RAG, leaving only three expeditionary squadrons.

So the USMC is going to operate the Super Hornet, in the form of the Growler?

 

[Pilot Fighter]

So the USMC is going to operate the Super Hornet, in the form of the Growler?

I'm hoping the plan changes but the Marines aren't going to transition to the Growler. They are betting it all on the F-35, thinking it can operate without dedicated Marine EW support.

There are some big fights underway. There is a push to keep VMAQ alive and give them Growlers. Likewise, there is a push to cut F-35 orders, replacing each cut F-35 with two Hornets/Growlers. I'm not sure of their plans for FAC(A).


http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/...d-navy-need-growlers-boeing-says-50-100-more/

 

[Area 5150]

And, lets not forget that the A-10 has a "NEW" role. A-10 TIV. That, and just pissing off Reed Timmer and making him all, "jelly"...

 

[Blackhawk]

High-speed, low-level, pretty good EW - that's a good start. On the other hand, with the A-10 you need uncontested ingress/egress, air superiority close to the battle, and the most serious AA threats addressed before it can be much help to the guys on the ground.

My question is, what advantage does the Bone have over the F-15E?

That has always been an argument against the A-10 yet ever since WWII and even in WWII attack aircraft were primarily used in situations where we had at least local air superiority.
Unfortunately our military and civilian leaders are forgetting that the primary role of a government is the defense of the society. Yes, cuts must be made as we draw down. But the question should start not with what defense we can afford but what defense we need based upon potential threats. In spite of the POTUS's absolute naivety the Russians are not our friends. Neither are the CHICOMs who got a wake up call with Desert Storm and have gone on a crash course modernization program since then.
In the past we have been able to recover from Kasserine Pass and Task Force Smith. Next time I am not so sure.

 

[pressclick]

You're a grunt who has really stepped in it big time and the chips are way down. What do you want on station first -F16, F15, F18, B1, B52, Luke Skywalker's X-Wing, or an A10?

I promise you that almost 100% of the ground pounders are going to consider the Warthog their best chance to see their wives and children again.

The B1 is an incredibly expensive aircraft to operate and is performing a role for which it was never designed as a CAS platform. Can it drop GPS bombs? Yes. Can almost everything else? Yes. I'm surprised C17s haven't had this capability added by now.

The A10 stands alone and is the only aircraft in the inventory designed from the tires to the strobes to do what the AFs primary, real world mission has been since 9/11/01.

On a side note, a big part of this issue is the lack of a dependable, multi-role medium bomber. I'm sure there is a reason why we sent F111s to Libya and not any of the afore mentioned aircraft.

On another side note, the AH64 has the same, POS, can't see IR strobes optics as the B1, and it's mission IS CAS.

On yet another side note, love it when civie authors try to sound in the know by attaching a 'special forces' or 'spec ops' moniker to everything as this author does referring to the IR strobes. I'm pretty sure that every water tanker or chaplain's HMMWV that leaves the wire anymore has an IR strobe on it. Heck, I have at least 4 in my attic right now.

 

[Boris Badenov]

The A10 stands alone and is the only aircraft in the inventory designed from the tires to the strobes to do what the AF seems to believe it's beneath its dignity to do

FIFY.

 

[RDoug]

On a side note, a big part of this issue is the lack of a dependable, multi-role medium bomber.

Bring back the B-25!

Just kidding.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Bring back the B-25!

Just kidding.

Nonsense. A-26 FTW. IMS, not-exactly-US were using them as recently as the Bay of Pigs, to good effect, no less.

 

[MikeD]

You're a grunt who has really stepped in it big time and the chips are way down. What do you want on station first -F16, F15, F18, B1, B52, Luke Skywalker's X-Wing, or an A10?

I promise you that almost 100% of the ground pounders are going to consider the Warthog their best chance to see their wives and children again.

The B1 is an incredibly expensive aircraft to operate and is performing a role for which it was never designed as a CAS platform. Can it drop GPS bombs? Yes. Can almost everything else? Yes. I'm surprised C17s haven't had this capability added by now.

The A10 stands alone and is the only aircraft in the inventory designed from the tires to the strobes to do what the AFs primary, real world mission has been since 9/11/01.

On a side note, a big part of this issue is the lack of a dependable, multi-role medium bomber. I'm sure there is a reason why we sent F111s to Libya and not any of the afore mentioned aircraft.

On another side note, the AH64 has the same, POS, can't see IR strobes optics as the B1, and it's mission IS CAS.

On yet another side note, love it when civie authors try to sound in the know by attaching a 'special forces' or 'spec ops' moniker to everything as this author does referring to the IR strobes. I'm pretty sure that every water tanker or chaplain's HMMWV that leaves the wire anymore has an IR strobe on it. Heck, I have at least 4 in my attic right now.

Hog has been a great bird, and does fine work in a permissive environment like Afghan, and to a certain extent, Iraq. Besides Desert Storm, we haven't had to test it against a battlefield with a modern IADS that it would have to go against, and that's where we'd start seeing issues. Same as we saw when A-10s were pulled back from interdiction-type duties far forward of the line in Desert Storm.

 

[Blackhawk]

Hog has been a great bird, and does fine work in a permissive environment like Afghan, and to a certain extent, Iraq. Besides Desert Storm, we haven't had to test it against a battlefield with a modern IADS that it would have to go against, and that's where we'd start seeing issues. Same as we saw when A-10s were pulled back from interdiction-type duties far forward of the line in Desert Storm.

The survivability of the A-10 is a valid concern, but that has always been an issue with close support going back to WWI and goes hand in hand with their roll- dig down and root out enemy during close contact fights. Show me any conflict where close support attack aircraft have not had issues with air defense. Heck, the military loved the A-1 so much in Viet Nam they looked into opening up the assembly line again to replace the ones they over stressed. The issue should be a cost analysis- is the human cost in Air Force lives lost worth the lives saved on the ground? Not being facetious- this is a valid thought process. It takes a great deal of time and money to train an Air Force A-10 pilot and the airframe is not cheap. How many pilots/airframes do we put on the line per grunt and how many grunts will that airframe/pilot save before being lost in the higher risk environment?

Has technology gotten to the point where "F" class aircraft can do the role? Call me skeptical... this is the same Air Force that begrudgingly purchased the A-10 solely to kill the Army Blackhawk attack helicopter program, then has tried to kill it since then and claim some fighter or another can do the role. (Before someone jumps up and down and gives me grief about the Blackhawk being a troop transport please save yourself the embarrassment and google it). The other airframes stay too high and come in too fast to overcome their light armor and vulnerability to ground fire to be really effective ground support aircraft.

 

[Hacker15e]

You're a grunt who has really stepped in it big time and the chips are way down. What do you want on station first -F16, F15, F18, B1, B52, Luke Skywalker's X-Wing, or an A10.

I promise you that almost 100% of the ground pounders are going to consider the Warthog their best chance to see their wives and children again.

Not to sound too harsh, but this is exactly why JTACs and GCs who fill out air support requests have to ask for effects rather than particular assets. With all do respect, what a grunt "wants" and thinks is the best asset to support, compared to the actual best asset to provide the effect he needs, often are very different things.

Grunts know about as much about airpower as I know about ground scheme of maneuver. This is specifically why we have airpower subject matter experts whose job it is to take those ASRs and JTARs and assign available CAS assets based on needed effects compared to asset availability.

The A10 stands alone and is the only aircraft in the inventory designed from the tires to the strobes to do what the AFs primary, real world mission has been since 9/11/01.

Not so much. It was designed in the 70s to kill Soviet tanks in Europe in a medium threat environment, with a FAC/CAS backup purpose.

It happens to be pretty well utilized in permissive-environment CAS, but it isn't what it was "designed" for.

 

[MikeD]

The survivability of the A-10 is a valid concern, but that has always been an issue with close support going back to WWI and goes hand in hand with their roll- dig down and root out enemy during close contact fights. Show me any conflict where close support attack aircraft have not had issues with air defense. Heck, the military loved the A-1 so much in Viet Nam they looked into opening up the assembly line again to replace the ones they over stressed. The issue should be a cost analysis- is the human cost in Air Force lives lost worth the lives saved on the ground? Not being facetious- this is a valid thought process. It takes a great deal of time and money to train an Air Force A-10 pilot and the airframe is not cheap. How many pilots/airframes do we put on the line per grunt and how many grunts will that airframe/pilot save before being lost in the higher risk environment?

Has technology gotten to the point where "F" class aircraft can do the role? Call me skeptical... this is the same Air Force that begrudgingly purchased the A-10 solely to kill the Army Blackhawk attack helicopter program, then has tried to kill it since then and claim some fighter or another can do the role. (Before someone jumps up and down and gives me grief about the Blackhawk being a troop transport please save yourself the embarrassment and google it). The other airframes stay too high and come in too fast to overcome their light armor and vulnerability to ground fire to be really effective ground support aircraft.

Agree it's always been an issue, but today we are so risk-averse as a military, we don't want to ever do anything that is overly risky. Much like how every CAS request is treated like darn-near an emergency. "We have troops moving to contact with AQ forces, we need air support NOW!" Um, they're moving to contact. That's what ground troops do in order to engage the enemy and kill them. Where's the emergency currently? Has the situation somehow already gone to hell in a handbasket, when they've barely made contact with the ragtags in their Toyota pickup?

Back in the Fulda Gap days, the survivability of the A-10 was briefed to us as something like 2 sorties, what with the intense and widespread Warsaw Pact IADS that was all over the place.; AAA being the primary threat.

I wish we were still the Reagan-era military where we could afford multiple airframes doing singular or multiple things; but unfortunately, that time has long passed, and the military will downsize with it (and has).

 

[Blackhawk]

Not to sound too harsh, but this is exactly why JTACs and GCs who fill out air support requests have to ask for effects rather than particular assets. With all do respect, what a grunt "wants" and thinks is the best asset to support, compared to the actual best asset to provide the effect he needs, often are very different things.

Grunts know about as much about airpower as I know about ground scheme of maneuver. This is specifically why we have airpower subject matter experts whose job it is to take those ASRs and JTARs and assign available CAS assets based on needed effects compared to asset availability.



Not so much. It was designed in the 70s to kill Soviet tanks in Europe in a medium threat environment, with a FAC/CAS backup purpose.

It happens to be pretty well utilized in permissive-environment CAS, but it isn't what it was "designed" for.

And unfortunately the "airpower experts" have proven time and again to not really be experts. We're talking about the same experts who hated John Boyd and the F-16. The same experts who never wanted the A-10 to begin with and tried to kill it as soon as it rolled off the assembly line. The same Air Force that considers mission success an aircraft lifting off the ground. Umm... no. Mission success is not a "sorty", mission success boots/munitions on target as the USASOC CG once told a hapless Air Force LTC.
The Air Force from what I have observed has no clue what effect an asset actually has in a close fight. Air to air? Sure. Moving stuff? Sure. Dropping tons of munitions or precision strikes? No one else I want. Target close... umm... you guys have been screwing that up since Operation Cobra.

 

[MikeD]

And unfortunately the "airpower experts" have proven time and again to not really be experts. We're talking about the same experts who hated John Boyd and the F-16. The same experts who never wanted the A-10 to begin with and tried to kill it as soon as it rolled off the assembly line. The same Air Force that considers mission success an aircraft lifting off the ground. Umm... no. Mission success is not a "sorty", mission success boots/munitions on target as the USASOC CG once told a hapless Air Force LTC.

The Air Force from what I have observed has no clue what effect an asset actually has in a close fight. Air to air? Sure. Moving stuff? Sure. Dropping tons of munitions or precision strikes? No one else I want. Target close... umm... you guys have been screwing that up since Operation Cobra.

That's why we have an embedded JTAC and associated TACP team with the ground units. They are the ones who should be taking the ground commander's requests/needs, and changing that into "airpower speak" in order to request the proper airframe for the mission. While the A-10 is great, it isn't always the best CAS choice, and truly neither is any other particular airframe. It all depends on what's attempting to be accomplished.

 

[Blackhawk]

Agree it's always been an issue, but today we are so risk-averse as a military, we don't want to ever do anything that is overly risky. Much like how every CAS request is treated like darn-near an emergency. "We have troops moving to contact with AQ forces, we need air support NOW!" Um, they're moving to contact. That's what ground troops do in order to engage the enemy and kill them. Where's the emergency currently? Has the situation somehow already gone to hell in a handbasket, when they've barely made contact with the ragtags in their Toyota pickup?

Back in the Fulda Gap days, the survivability of the A-10 was briefed to us as something like 2 sorties, what with the intense and widespread Warsaw Pact IADS that was all over the place.; AAA being the primary threat.

I wish we were still the Reagan-era military where we could afford multiple airframes doing singular or multiple things; but unfortunately, that time has long passed, and the military will downsize with it (and has).

I don't disagree. My problem is two part
1. This has always been the line from the Air Force as they try to shovel more money into the latest "F" program- can't afford it. Sorry, but I don't trust them.
2. Cost MUST be an issue. But I think we are getting into a mindset of "what can we afford based upon what the civilians tell us we get" verses "this is what we really need to do the mission of keeping the country safe" and being upfront with the civilians. I see it with the POTUS's message. It is not "this is our end goal, and this is what we must do to achieve it", it is "this is what I am willing to do, so this is our end goal".
Again, I see my children being involved in the next Kasserine Pass and Task Force Smith in spite of the fact that I try to talk them out of the military. Unfortunately I don't think things will turn out as well next time.