Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

Related article [0]: The U.S. Air Force Has Always Loathed Close Air Support

Essentially the A-10 is being scrapped to keep the F-35 program afloat. But that article argues that the Air Force always had ideological issues with the CAS role and never wanted the A-10.

People argue in support of the A-10 largely because of its ability to travel at a slower speed for better ground engagement (and having great weapons for when it does).

So my question is: Aren't helicopters better yet still? An A-10 can travel slow and low supporting troops, but a helicopter (e.g. Apache) can literally hover above and lay down extremely precise fire.

So instead of arguing F-35 Vs. A-10, shouldn't we just accept that maybe jet aircraft aren't the ideal platform for CAS, and look at helicopters or maybe even prop aircraft?

[0] http://warisboring.com/articles/the-u-s-air-force-has-loathe...

View on HN

Attack helicopters can't fly as fast, as high, or carry as much weight. They also don't have weapons like the A-10 does, nothing else in the world short of warships does. That gun is absolutely berserk.

So if you're in a situation where you need constant cover, you want either an AC-130, which is usually limited to night missions since it's a gigantic slow moving target, or an A-10 which can get in and out while having a very clear sense of the battlefield by being in so close.

Helicopters are better suited to anti-tank warfare, they can sneak up on them and pick them off at crazy ranges, but the last time we've seen that at scale was 1991 Iraq.

The other problem with helicopters is how long they can stay airborne. Since any helicopter pilot always has one eye on the fuel gauge, where "time to bingo" is a constant concern as those things chew through gas like crazy, they're not as versatile. Some joke that the A-10's loiter time is only limited by how much food the pilot brought along, it's got massive fuel tanks and efficient engines.

Consider this commentary on ground support planes: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow

> They also don't have weapons like the A-10 does, nothing else in the world short of warships does. That gun is absolutely berserk.

Actually the GAU-8's ammunition was derived from that of the ( non-Gatling ) Oerlikon KCA cannon, mounted by the SAAB JA-37 Viggen. Six times the energy of most other 30mm aircraft rounds. Hughes developed a podded KCA that was tested on a wide range of aircraft, down to little Broncos!

Later, a cut-down four-barrel but still full-power version of the GAU-8 was fitted in a pod as the GPU-5 and briefly carried by F-16s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE1S95Cy7wg

Interesting. That's a similar weapon, but it's also single barrel, so it's certainly comparable, but doesn't fire nearly as quickly, and carries far fewer rounds: 126 vs. 1100.

The weapon I was thinking of is the Phalanx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS), a naval weapon, though even that fires smaller shells at a slower rate.

The GAU-13 slower, smaller pod version of the GAU-8 is an interesting test, but it doesn't seem to have caught on.

That video you linked to had a related video on the A-10 reloading procedure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnSpkL1InuA That is a lot of bullets.

> The weapon I was thinking of is the Phalanx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS), a naval weapon, though even that fires smaller shells at a slower rate.

The Phalanx CIWS uses the a version of the M61 Vulcan 20mm gatling gun, as have lots of Air Force fighters (from the 1950s through current fighters like the F-22 and F-18.)

So, its not exactly a weapon that "nothing in the world short of warships" has.

Still not sure what you're saying here. Is there a 30mm gatling gun with over 1000 rounds of ammunition on anything other than a warship? Tanks have larger bore primary weapons, but given how the gun inside the A-10 is too huge to fit in any normal tank, I doubt they're ever equipped with one.

Speaking of prop aircraft...

Related article [0]: The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money (link bait-title)

You might be interested in this article about the A-29B program. The Super Tucano can provide superior ground support, it is very cheap to produce and maintain, and the US military could have gotten a lot of them out in the field quickly. They're being built now and will be used in the Afghan and Iraqi militaries, but the Pentagon preferred to put all of their money in the F-35.

[0] http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow

We had a pretty epic discussion on here about that yesterday, in fact. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10250599

But the reason the Pentagon didn't purchase was not because of the F-35, but because Congress wouldn't let them defund the A-10, which the A-29 replaces. DoD isn't going to pay for two CAS/COIN aircraft, so the A-10 remains.

Thanks!

This is related in that it is published by the same blog, which has made something of a cottage industry out of saying bad things about the F-35.

Here's a link from yesterday's discussion of the A-29, which shed some light on statistics that show that the F-16 is in some ways more successful in CAS missions than the A-10.

http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-ai...

Why doesn't the Army take them? The Army needs CAS and there would be a benefit if the A-10 was under the same command as the units it is supporting.

The only downside is the loss of prestige for the AF.

Because they wouldn't get the headcount to go with them

I don't think flying low and slow are good attributes these days with advanced avionics and targeting systems. With the advances in drones and computer software I am pretty sure we will get accuracy to the point we can get the guy next to you if necessary. It won't be today, but it will happen.

currently the A-10s armor isn't sufficient for modern weapon systems it will meet. any helicopter is just a big target

Reply on news.ycombinator.com