"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
In message , Tiger
writes
William Black wrote:
What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish
quantities
with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988 F150
could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that fits the
bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop bombs
in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be pushing the
concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Fine until the Bad Guys hit it with a 1960s-vintage SA-7 or similar, which
is cheap and widely proliferated and very effective against such aircraft
(as evidenced by the withdrawal of the A-1 from Vietnam by the end).

By the time you've added the IRCM capability to survive MANPADS, included
the navigation and comms gear needed to hit *that* building to support the
troops, and bolted on the sensors that let you operate at night as well as
by day... your solution is no longer quick, cheap and simple.


It's the old problem of the Blitzfighter: it's an appealing notion to fill
the skies with cheap, simple aircraft armed with a simple but deadly gun
and unburdened by complex electronic boondoggles, but the reality falls
over when many are blotted from the sky by SAMs, others can't be reached
on a swamped VHF voicenet, those that can get to where they're needed get
into long conversations about "I see the street, I think, and some red
smoke, you want me to hit the red smoke?... okay, across the street and
three houses north of the red smoke... I show two red smokes now... was
that you calling 'Check! Check! Check!'?"

The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the
Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be
(though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the
A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless,
wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting on
bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable
effectiveness and longevity...)

When analyzed this way, yes, most reasonable folks would agree - these days
in real-life you do need - minimum - an upgraded A-10 or equivalent to
realistically stand a chance of being survivable, operating in night/adverse
weather, and being able to use smart weapons.

I think what turns most critics' cranks is the sheer obscene cost of the
advanced fighters. The unit cost for A-10's is quoted at roughly US $10-15
million on the sites I found. All I know is that the F-22 unit cost is
somewhere north of US $100 million (the Air Force says $142 million on their
factsheet but who knows which unit cost that is) and the F-35 unit cost is
also over US $100 million. Neither is as optimized for CAS as the A-10 is
(criticisms of the F-35 in that role include that it is less able than the
A-10 to find ground targets independently, has less survivability, doesn't
persist/loiter nearly as well as the A-10, and doesn't have a Honking Big
Cannon).

I don't think anyone with a clue is saying please bring back the Skyraider.
But it's a legit complaint to quibble about servicing the ground forces CAS
needs with super-expensive fighter-bombers.

It is of course as much of an issue in Canada as it is elsewhere. There will
always be a camp that favours planes along the lines of the retired
CF-5/CF-116, others who can stomach prices in the CF-18 range, and any
number who are keen to see F-35's replace the CF-18. I myself just can't see
something like a CF-35 (or whatever they call it) as being available in
enough numbers to support a CF deployment similar to Afghanistan...what'll
they have, a couple of ac available in theatre at any given time? The
problem for Canada is we cannot easily support two different fleets. Me, I'd
go with a Saab Gripen NG.

AHS