A-10C Thunderbolt II makes a comeback

[Smitty-48]

Multirole is the only logical way forward if you don't have unlimited money. That said it can sometimes be economic to keep existing platforms in a limited role until upkeep becomes unsustainable. The challenge is to resist the tendency to give in to nostalgia. Recognize when the time has come to stop throwing good money after bad. That is a hard decision to make for any business and for individuals as well. The sunk cost fallacy is the most common economic error we make as humans.

When the A-10 was developed, it simply was not a precision guided munition world, back in the 70's and 80's, it was still the age of the dumb bomb, with a few semi active laser homing kits to take out bridges, to kill tanks and attack troops, you had to fly around and engage them linearly with guns and rockets and cluster bombs, but it's simply not the case anymore, that whole concept of operations is obsolete, in the age of precision guided munitions, you just don't fight that way anymore.

In terms of engaging the target, the PGM does all the work, the launch platforms job is largely reconnaissance in support of that.

[ssu]

You know how d our B-52s are? The youngest ones are from about 1960.

Literally antiques at this point.

They are, and those antique planes are kept flying. And actually the whole USAF fleet is rather old compared to earlier times.

Current engineering analysis show the B-52's life span to extend beyond the year 2040. The limiting factor of the B-52s service life is the economic limit of the aircraft's upper wing surface, calculated to be approximately 32,500 to 37,500 flight hours. Based on the projected economic service life and forecast mishap rates, the Air Force will be unable to maintain the requirement of 62 aircraft by 2044, after 84 years in service

Well, 2044 is a long time from now...

The historically high mishap rate with the B-52s is simply because in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s mishap rates were higher. I assume it's really about a change in culture and determination for safety. Back in the old days it was taken granted that aircraft fell from the sky here and then. Shit happens.
Here's actually a newer stat from http://www.safety.af.mil about the B-52. Lifetime mishaps 1,63 per 100k and last ten years 0,50. In 1969 there were nine B-52 accidents while since 1989 there has been either 1 accident or none annually.

And btw, the B-52 is a great example that you do need specialized aircraft (if your aren't a puny Air Force with limited abilities). Specialized aircraft like bombers.

[Smitty-48]

Frankly, the B-52 can easily be replaced by a commercial airliner airframe in the age of PGM's, you could put some bomb bays and racks onto a 767 airframe and it could do the job of the B-52.

[Hastur]

Multirole is the only logical way forward if you don't have unlimited money. That said it can sometimes be economic to keep existing platforms in a limited role until upkeep becomes unsustainable. The challenge is to resist the tendency to give in to nostalgia. Recognize when the time has come to stop throwing good money after bad. That is a hard decision to make for any business and for individuals as well. The sunk cost fallacy is the most common economic error we make as humans.

When the A-10 was developed, it simply was not a precision guided munition world, back in the 70's and 80's, it was still the age of the dumb bomb, with a few semi active laser homing kits to take out bridges, to kill tanks and attack troops, you had to fly around and engage them linearly with guns and rockets and cluster bombs, but it's simply not the case anymore, that whole concept of operations is obsolete, in the age of precision guided munitions, you just don't fight that way anymore.

You're right about tanks. Smart munitions from high altitude or below the horizon Apaches are a better solution. But why are the A-10s in Afghanistan? No tanks armies there and as you said the gun on the A-10 is pretty awful against personnel. All low cal autocannon are btw. It must be some kind of COIN role they're envisioning. Don't they have better things for that?

[Smitty-48]

You have to get completely out of the 4th generation mindset when you're thinking about F-35, it may be replacing the F-16, but it doesn't fight like an F-16, with VLO and hemispheric sensor fusion, you don't need AEW, you don't need a wing man, you don't have to fly in formations, each F-35 is a force multiplier, which flies around in denied airspace, seeing everything around it and coordinating a combined arms attack throughout the battlefield, it does so much more than just execute turns and shoot at stuff.

[ssu]

Frankly, the B-52 can easily be replaced by a commercial airliner airframe in the age of PGM's, you could put some bomb bays and racks onto a 767 airframe and it could do the job of the B-52.

Think so?

And then there's the reality: Lockheed Martin shareholders like you don't like it and neither do the Air Force generals. After all, it's not a B-2 or even a B-1 in survivability.

There was actually planned the "logical" replacement for B-52, using the best civilian platform there was:

In this configuration, a single 747 CMCA could launch 72 AGM-86 ALCMs on a single sortie, which is absolutely impressive considering a B-52 can carry up to 20. Satellite data links and other forms of communication could have allowed for the CMCA's missiles to be re-programmed from external sources while the aircraft was already in flight. The "hump" area behind the cockpit that is usually reserved for first class passengers on airline versions of the 747 had enough square footage that limited command and control and network relay functions could be added to the basic CMCA concept.

Let's face it: Boeing was doing back the OK without government subsidies, so replacing the age old B-52s with a "B-747" fleet didn't go anywhere. And naturally conventional bombing would have been possible too. I don't know if this idea still lingers on...

[Smitty-48]

Multirole is the only logical way forward if you don't have unlimited money. That said it can sometimes be economic to keep existing platforms in a limited role until upkeep becomes unsustainable. The challenge is to resist the tendency to give in to nostalgia. Recognize when the time has come to stop throwing good money after bad. That is a hard decision to make for any business and for individuals as well. The sunk cost fallacy is the most common economic error we make as humans.

When the A-10 was developed, it simply was not a precision guided munition world, back in the 70's and 80's, it was still the age of the dumb bomb, with a few semi active laser homing kits to take out bridges, to kill tanks and attack troops, you had to fly around and engage them linearly with guns and rockets and cluster bombs, but it's simply not the case anymore, that whole concept of operations is obsolete, in the age of precision guided munitions, you just don't fight that way anymore.

You're right about tanks. Smart munitions from high altitude or below the horizon Apaches are a better solution. But why are the A-10s in Afghanistan? No tanks armies there and as you said the gun on the A-10 is pretty awful against personnel. All low cal autocannon are btw. It must be some kind of COIN role they're envisioning. Don't they have better things for that?

The A-10's are in Afghanistan because there are congressional patrons who do not want to give up their A-10's, it's pork in the districts, and nostalgia for 4th generation air war.

[Smitty-48]

Let's face it: Boeing was doing back the OK without government subsidies, so replacing the age old B-52s with a "B-747" fleet didn't go anywhere.

B-52 is underrated in the penetration role, that's true.



You know what? You're right, you've talked me out of it, better just re-engine the B-52's and upgrade the avionics, until the B-21's actually show up.

Actual bombers are in very limited supply, there's not enough B-1's and B-2's to go around.

[ssu]

You know what? You're right, you've talked me out of it, better just re-engine the B-52's and upgrade the avionics, until the B-21 actually show up,

Why they have not replaced the old engines with more powerful and more economic ones I don't know. Of course, such logical plans have allways existed.

A long-awaited effort to re-engine the 76-strong Boeing B-52H fleet would start no earlier than fiscal year 2020, but the USAF’s head of Global Strike Command feels a final decision to lengthen the 60-year-old Boeing aircraft’s life is closer than ever.

Last year, the air force released a request for information evaluating financing alternatives for a potential B-52 re-engining effort. The service has been exploring financing alternatives including an operating lease, service contract and other hybrid financing options in order to fund what it estimates would be a multi-billion effort to replace 650 engines across the fleet, according to the RFI. The air force is still deciding when to release a request for proposal, Gen Robin Rand told reporters this week.

“This is all part of the [fiscal year] 2020 planning choices we’re talking about, so on the table,” he says. “I feel positive but I’m not going to try to hem in the chief or secretary, but I think we’re closer to getting a decision on re-engining than any time that I’ve been the commander.”

Rand emphasized the USAF would not implement the effort until FY2020, if the re-engining even happens.

(Flight Global, 30th Nov 2017)

[Smitty-48]

You know what? You're right, you've talked me out of it, better just re-engine the B-52's and upgrade the avionics, until the B-21 actually show up,

Why they have not replaced the old engines with more powerful and more economic ones I don't know. Of course, such logical plans have allways existed.

It's the budget, dude, for all the talk of how much money the Americans are spending on the Pentagon, in historical terms Pentagon, they're actually poor, like I said before, in real dollars, they were spending 15 times as much in the 1980's

It's called the Peace Dividend. $700 billion 2017 dollars is not actually a lot of money, in Cold War terms.

When they were buying B-52's new in 1962, the DOD budget was $3.2 trillion 2017 dollars, and the $700 billion they are spending now, was only $86 billion 1962 dollars, so in real terms, the Americans were spending 37 times more than they are now, in 1962.