Hacker News Reader

Comment by openasocket | Hacker News Reader

I honestly think it makes sense. In a high intensity conflict, the a10 just isn't survivable. That doesn't mean we should replace it with an f35 though. Dropping a JDAM 10 miles away isn't the same. You're still going to have a need for something flying low and slow over the battlefield, even if just providing forward air control for the fast jet dropping the heavy ordnance. And that mission is just so risky (I believe CAS is by far the most dangerous mission to undertake). I think this is where UAVs are going to shine. We should replace the a10 with some additional UAVs capable of providing the CAS and FAC missions. Ideally this should be done with a relatively attritable airframe, something cheap and easy to maintain, and being able to take off from improvised or degraded airfields would be a nice plus. Make them networked so that the grunts on the ground can see what the operator is seeing, and can point them in the right direction.

View on HN

The Russians haven't just invested in ground-to-air systems, they've also invested heavily in electronic warfare, it's going to be a challenge to keep the communication link to a close air support UAV working.

The US has a secure, jam resistant com link that will be used by the F35 to control a squadron of drones. I’m blanking on the name right now but it was displayed in a public demo so I’m sure someone else on here has seen it.

If they are investing in it, they sure as hell aren't getting a big bang for their buck from what I have seen. Their man portable counter UAS systems are a fucking joke and only work on common stuff that isn't designed for heavily contested EW environments.

Their bigger systems look reasonable on paper, but I doubt they would be up to the task of dealing with high end comms in an actual combat environment. They can barely keep them alive in Ukraine and from what open sources are reporting are either not very effective or deployed in such small quantities to be effectively nonexistent for the majority of areas seeing combat.

Sure, Iran was able to down a stealth drone years ago by messing with the electronic nav systems, but it wasn't like there was actual combat happening, and I don't think they have repeated that since then.

It does, but the fact that SU-25s, which are effectively the same vintage, are still flying in Ukraine is pretty amazing to me.

I could see a use of the a10s as a launch platform for 200-500lb loitering munitions to get them in range of frontlines, but using them for anything in the pacific would be suicidal.

> I honestly think it makes sense. In a high intensity conflict, the a10 just isn't survivable. That doesn't mean we should replace it with an f35 though

Why not ? I heard that the F35 is the best aircraft ever. /s

UCAVs have worked pretty well for CAS in low-intensity, counter insurgency type conflicts but they are totally dependent on satellites for control and navigation. Potential near-peer adversaries are investing heavily in as anti-satellite weapons so in any future high end conflict those satellites will probably be the first casualties.

The US military and allies have been working to develop "loyal wingman" type UCAVs that can operate under the control of a crewed aircraft. Those show promise, but still require the controller to get fairly close in order to allow for reliable communications in a hostile EW environment.

Autonomous flight control software is nowhere near being able to perform CAS. That's probably decades away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com