Well, the obvious would be…. if your current inventory only has certain abilities, your doctrine is tied within those limits. Your doctrine is only as good as the person/people writing it and the people that have to implement it and maintain it to keep it relevant with the times.
Also doctrine is constrained by current/available resources not just airframes. Example: Aircraft type x might be able to carry missile y but the people skills or training might not be available anytime in the future to keep said missile up to a manufacturers claimed performance. If a country has a good economy where engineers get paid well in the civil sector, the high tech sustainment program of a high tech aircraft you have in place can and does suffer. Availability of skilled engineers is critical for high tech weapons. Smart people might also leave a country if they can get paid what they are worth, somewhere else. There is a lot to be said for low tech weapons if you don’t have a number of engineering skilled people available. Re: in the sustainment of low tech weapons. And the sustainment pages of your doctrine are much easier to write and implement.
Sometimes money isn’t enough. Look at Saudi Arabia. A rich mans flying club with outsourced sustainment. Taxied often, flown little. Creative doctrine indeed.

Armament
One 20mm MK-61A1 Vulcan cannon, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, HARM, Strike, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Walleye, Maverick missiles, Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW), Joint Direct Attack/Munition (JDAM), and various general purpose bombs, mines, and rockets

Sparrow isn’t even being made anymore and isn’t considered a serious A2A weapon. “Strike” I assume that means “Shrike”? Same. No longer made or a relevant weapon., Walleye is long gone too.

Combat range. Varies but just a little more than a C Hornet. While it carries close to 4,000lb more gas, it is also taking along more drag and weight and like the legacy Hornet, two mouths to feed.

Great photos. Nice looking plane.

And then there is reality which = most CAS not done by the A-10. Today for example….

——

Feb. 22 airpower: F-15s stop sniper fire

2/22/2007 – SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFNEWS) — SOUTHWEST ASIA — In Afghanistan Feb. 20, an Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles provided close-air support for International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF troops, receiving sniper fire near Now Zad. The joint terminal attack controller, or JTAC, gave coordinates to a compound where the sniper fire originated and an F-15E dropped a Guided Bomb Unit-39 small diameter bomb. JTAC called the hit successful and reported sniper fire had stopped.

The F-15Es were then assigned to provide close-air support for ISAF troops receiving mortar and small arms fire near Now Zad. An F-15E dropped a GBU-12 successfully on enemy position. JTAC reported the mortar fire had stopped. The F-15Es remained in the area to search for a ridgeline for mortar firing positions and movement of enemy personnel.

A B-1 was assigned to locate and destroy an enemy firing position in a cave complex near Now Zad. The B1-B pilot recommended dropping a GBU-31, however, the ground commander relayed through the JTAC that the cave was no longer a valid target because enemy insurgents had moved on.

The B-1B was then assigned to provide a show of force for ISAF troops engaged in enemy contact near Deh Rawod. The JTAC reported the show of force was successful.

Royal Air Force GR-7s provided air support for ISAF troops receiving mortar fire near Now Zad. A GR-7 released an Enhanced Pave Way II laser-guided bomb on the enemy mortar position. The JTAC reported a direct hit.

In total, 34 close-air-support missions were flown in support of ISAF and Afghan troops, reconstruction activities and route patrols.

Eleven Air Force and Royal Air Force intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft flew missions in support of operations in Afghanistan. Additionally, U.S. Navy fighter aircraft performed in non-traditional ISR roles.

In Iraq , Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs conducted a show of force, dispensing 24 flares near Al Mahmudiyah. The show of force was successful according to the Joint Terminal Attack Controllers.

The A-10s were also assigned with observing a mosque for a possible sniper in the bell tower in the same area.

Then, JTAC gave an update that coalition forces were taking small arms fire from the north and south of their position and the A-10s were sent on a reconnaissance mission at a building where the suspected small arms fire originated.

The A-10 pilots observed coalition forces evacuating wounded personnel and moving north. Then, JTAC requested a show of force over the suspected building while the ground coalition forces cleared the building. No further enemy activity was observed.

U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons provided over watch near Baghdad in support of a downed helicopter recovery efforts.

Royal Air Force GR-4s were tasked to provide over watch for a suspicious building where an improvised explosive device had been reported. The GR-4s proceeded with close air support to look for suspicious vehicles and individuals near a building in the vicinity of Ramadi. They were then assigned to look for suspicious activity on the east side of the river where two boats pulled up to an island, appeared to load material and then headed down stream to offload the material.

The GR-4s were also assigned to look for other suspicious activity in the area, to include the investigation of an explosion. The GR-4 pilots reported several hot spots, and that friendly forces had arrived in the area.

Air Force F-16 pilots provided over watch and were assigned to search for suspicious vehicles in Ramadi as well. A Bongo Truck was detected and the vehicle was tracked to a probable residence. Several personnel met the vehicle at the location and appeared to either load or unload unidentified items to and from the truck. The activity was reported to JTAC.

Other F-16s were tasked to provide surveillance to Kamaliyah sector of Baghdad in preparation for a convoy movement. They arrived at the location and then provided over watch and search of the area during the cordon.

In total, coalition aircraft flew 49 close-air support-missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions included support to coalition troops, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041967

As it showed in the Balkans against a limited enemy?!
The sometimes senseless bombing in Iraq showed, that there is always a lack of intelligence. The bombing capabilities had outpaced the recce and verification capabilities by a big margin. All that against a well-known enemy with little capabilities left. The last blue versus blue incidents showed that severe problem for all to see.

War isn’t perfect. Also NCW ( netcentric warfare ) has come a very long way since, Allied Force 1999 where whole portions of NCW capability we have today were then a sick joke.
The A-10 blue on blue shows a few strong problems. At that time A-10 wasn’t a very useful NCW asset. The analog way of using voice com back and forth and visual only mark one eyeball killing decisions from the cockpit. One may even say training too. As the Harrier… both Brit and Marine were in the same boat but they didn’t have a history of wasting friendlies like the A-10. Here I would look at the training program. Saying we fixed the A-10 frat problems from Desert Storm added up to = “talk is cheap” after it’s other frats happened. That frat in OIF was a near dupe of one that happened in Desert Storm. The Brits didn’t do anything wrong in that scenario, they had their color panels displayed. The P.E. package for A-10 may help reduce frats where at least they have new com gear and a new-gen laser pod to zoom in on stuff and take a closer look. The binoculars they have obviously failed them that day. As well as thinking. Saying “orange” should have brought up one to question the other better.
Want a good close in killer for CAS in low AD threat environs that has learned from it’s previous sins? Try Apache. Working in twos at night with JSTARS, GFACS, and UAVs…. it is showing to be a very effective platform. Including that second crew member. I think there is still use for the A-10. Today, Apache with the new way Hellfires are being used in CAS has some reach. A-10 crews might learn a thing or two as an exchange tour in an Apache unit flying as the second crew person. Or have all A-10 candidates go to advanced infantry officer training (obviously an Army class) to get a better feel for who they are there to support. It works for the Marines. Apache’s stand off weapons ability is still to be realized with future weapons. JCM should be funded. Apaches bare base logistics foot print is less and easier to move around and supply in the field. STOVL JSF will have more advantage on A-10 on bare base infrastructure cost (no longer runway etc ) but might come out as a wash given the unknown/untested JSF with more volumes of avionics to support. A-10 is simple to sustain in the field. When the USMC originally got the Harrier ( the early version ) many many years ago, they stressed that they did NOT want overly complex stuff like what ( well in their view ) was complex ….in the then RAF Harrier. The Marines just wanted to load up go over the hill, drop bombs, rinse and repeat all day. No ( what was then modern ) INS or other crap. The decision on when where you should do a bare base is an important one for many logistical reasons. Even security reasons. One night in Vietnam, we had a whole large portion of our night interdiction ability taken out when VCs dropped mortar rounds on the night avionics equipped B-57s at Ben Hoa. So bigger more obvious bare bases take the risk of the natives taking them out like that. Also “bare base” has a different definition by service. USAF in culture… considers a “bare base” a cement runway one they took over. :p Army and Marines any flat dirt will do. But if close in, bare base ops are important, consider… CH-47, V-22, JSF, Apache, Sea Cobra, A-10. Which of these is not STOVL/VTOL ? 😉

[QUOTE=ColonelMarksman;1082864]The AMRAAM missile is radar-guided with a range of 110 miles (model D). The target picked up on radar by the aircraft has its speed, altitude, and directed path calculated which is fed into the missile. The missile then goes on an intercept course. Should the target move or attempt to evade (e.g. change directions) the information is linked to the missile and it changes accordingly. The AMRAAM, from close range, has a lot of fuel in it, and thus has problems turning, but will be most deadly when its almost out (when it can turn more freely after an intended target).

…. that’s off the top of my head. How much of that is correct?

110 miles for the D…. hmmm well since the range of the C and D are pretty much classified that would be an interesting claim. Have a source for that?

[QUOTE=ELP;1082851]-Today’s ground forward air controllers

You mean the stuff that the Air Force’s special forces combat controllers do, or you talking something else? Be a bit more specific, it kinda didn’t make sense.

Yeah. The Iraqis (or any enemies) are using more modern technology. Today’s low altitude threats are higher on NATO sides. To my understanding, most of our enemies are still using the same-old ancient technology.

Even then, it wouldn’t matter. The A-10 can take a substanial amount of punishment and fly in places fighter-bombers wouldn’t dream of. The other thing is that the A-10 has 11 hardpoints. Most other aircraft can’t carry that amount of payload. B-52, and Lancers, B-2s, yeah, but those are strategic bombers and used for something else.

You must have just returned from the model shop. The artwork showing A-10s carrying lots of stuff isn’t all that accurate unless it is very very close to home base. A typical bare base jet like in afcrapistan is a handful of Mk82s, A Maverick, Gun ammo and some marker rockets for other fast movers to hit. Reason is it’s hot & high performance. You are way off. B-1 and B-52 have been used for the last 6 years for CAS with JDAMs called in by GFACs. Nothing new about that really. Recently some B-52s have laser pods on them to self designate Paveways. B-1 is getting this ability also. “A-10 going places other aircraft wouldn’t dream of…” You lost me on that one. F-18, F-16, or even better F-15 with a mix of 9 500lb class JDAM and/or Paveway on the the conformals and a quad rack of SDB… these aircraft come in the GFAC gives the coordination…. and a whole bunch of stuff dies. The aircraft I mentioned didn’t need to get in close as those weapons can come down from miles away 30-40 thousand feet and produce sub 4 meter accuracy in garbage visibility.

What the heck do you think makes it so great? It’s awesome speed? Because its slow and low on technology is why its great. Besides, its ruggedness allows it to take off on airbases right on or near the battlefield. The F-35 wouldn’t be able to afford to be dispatched at an improvised airbase.

Thats why the Marines are getting the STOVL version and maybe we (USAF) might some day many years from now when there is money and/or a will/need. Bare base ops aren’t always a solution… it is great when they are but on occasion the logistics of supporting said bare base isn’t always as effective as calling in something from a carrier off shore. It all depends.

If that’s the case, then no; nuclear missiles are the best tank killers.

The A-10 is the only CAS aircraft I know of that can blow up tanks with its standard machinegun, or rip men to shreds with impact, shrapenel, and force from a meter away on a straffing run. The F-35 is commiting suicide doing that.

As the A-10 gets ripped into eternity by a Tor 1 while the JSF can ignore a Tor 1 by plinking tanks with a whole variety of weapons. I mention the Tor 1, but even weapons that have been around for ages SA-8, SA-9, Roland, can end an A-10.

Check your information again. One of the few and only aircraft for CAS in Iraq is the A-10. Like I said, because its old, crusty, and rugged, it can afford landing in Iraq with terrible ground conditions or terrain (like sand).

Sand, as in you have your head buried in the sand. A-10 has been doing some very nice work. However, not all of it, or not even most of the CAS. B-1, B-52, F-15, 16, 18, Harrier, Tornado, etc have been doing most of it. Mostly with JDAM, and Laser guided bombs now SDB ( F-15 )and some occasional strafing, to name a few.

It’s much like the AK-47 vs the M-16. Drop an AK-47 in a river or six feet of sand. Leave for a week. Come back, dry (or brush off), stick in a new magazine, shoot. It works. You wouldn’t dream of doing that with an M-16.

A nice non sequitur but that is about it. Mission up times for the other fast movers have been more than good enough in the desert. They have only had 30 years to figure that out with the teen fighters.

— And? The reason it has poor avionics adds to the great lowness of its cost and need for maintance. Remember, the more computers you put on something, the more chances you have of something breaking down. And I highly doubt the A-10s would’ve died without the sandstorm.

You’re talking about a flying tank here (4″ of titanium steel around the pilot, or more specifically, nearly 900lbs of it. Try destroying 900lbs of titantium steel some time and tell me how easy it is). The MINIMUM caliber to damage the A-10 is 23mm (high explosive, armor peircing 23mm). In addition, name me an aircraft DESIGNED (not can, designed) to fly with 1 wing, 1 tail fin, the elevator, and land without landing gear.

The funny thing about most of it’s weapons are that if it is in range, so is the enemy. It has brought pilots home. However A-10s have also been shot down too. Shot down because the only weapons ability it has means it has to fly through threats. Other aircraft can avoid this and still accomplish the mission. There is no comparison to the A-10 and other fast movers when other aircraft can accomplish most of the mission sets that previously before cheap PGMs the A-10 had a greater mission set that belonged only to it. No more. The P.E. package will help, but still won’t save it from something like a Tor 1, or a few other threats for that matter.

Ok. Send in a AESA Super Hornet Block II (or any JSF for that matter) when there’s an innumerable amount of SAMs, high threat territory with unknown numerous other defenses to strike a small group of tanks… IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. Oh, btw, MiGs might be patrolling too.

That’s suicide even for a squadron of Harriers, helicopters, or anything really. We need the targets cleared without the help of ground support (thus, no combat controllers with their little lasers).

Where ever there are ground troops, there are GFACs. And they will be supported by the likes of fast mover high altitude legacy aircraft and someday the JSF. Supported very well. The air power order of killing for first nights of the war are ( where applicable) :

Phase 1
*Enemy aircraft
*Enemy air defense ( Large SAMs)
*Enemy
*Other strategic targets deemed important ( WMD etc )

Phase 2
Thinning the herd-
–Using contempt of engagement as mentioned above and after enemy large SAMs are mostly taken care of.. then starts the organized killing of enemy ground troops before our troops even come in contact. Inside of 24-48 hours a carrier wing supported by other allied assets or not…. can get a good start on breaking down an enemy fighting division by plinking every piece of heavy equipment that appears on the sensors-AFVs, Soft vehicles, Artillery, AAA, Battlefield mobile SAMs, communications, supplies… Rinse and repeat.
JSF even though we may or may not need it ( we are getting it so there you go ) Will have some extra ability here to rapidly engage any large mobile SAMs that show themselves that got away in phase one.

Phase 3
Interdiction in direct support of ground troops and CAS.
Here what our troops face is a ground force that is not fresh, that is possibly in disorder. Now here the A-10 can be very useful. But first you need a field to use it from. If the geography doesn’t cooperate, the A-10 may never see combat. Even then once a beachhead, airhead what ever is established, F-35 STOVL has much more utility. Here carrier air power or long range bombers will serve well. The real question today with modern PGMs is… “What if you had a war and A-10 never showed up?”….answer for us: The mission would still get done, no problem.

…

You need to seriously educate yourself on:

-Modern precision guided munitions
-Today’s ground forward air controllers
-Today’s low altitude threats are even better than the 70-‘s-80’s Fulda Gap scenario, including more countries having such technology.
-Response time for emergency CAS requests. The A-10 is… slow.
-CBU-105_SFW_BLU-108b ( A B-52 at 40,000ft and miles away took out a large tank formation threatening a Marine GFAC and the troops he was with.
Today, an A-10 is not the greatest tank killer.
-Most of today’s CAS requests are being serviced, without the A-10. And even if low level ground threats like trashfire, AAA, MANPAD’s, Small battlefield SAMs etc were around, they still couldn’t reach the fast mover.
-The C model ( P.E. precision engagement ) package, isn’t even widely fielded yet. This takes A-10 right off the planning table when targets have to be hit in poor weather/bad visually obscured situations. OIF 2003, JSTARS and fast fixed wings with JDAMs stopped a whole Iraqi formation that thought they had cover from a sandstorm. They didn’t they died. Even as it matures… AESA Super Hornet Block II and Block III of JSF will have this extra improved moving target ability. A-10 won’t and even with the P.E. package can’t even get out of engagement range of ground threats.
-That A-10 is very useful, but far from always being the first tool out of the bag when CAS is needed.