I’m certainly not going to get into a debate on when CAS transitions to BAI with you….for that way lies madness and, for the purpose of the thread, its also irrlevant. Op Allied Force definitely had a CAS component. Friendly forces on the ground called for air and it was delivered. One such instance led to the ‘famous’ loss of Nick Richardsons SHAR.

Nick Richardson’s Sea Harrier was shot down during Operation Deny Flight in 1994 which was provision of air support for UN peacekeepers and to enforce a no fly zone over Bosnia.

Allied Force refers to bombing of Serbia in 1999 and which was primarily strike missions against ground targets in Serbia. I’ve not read anything about spec forces embedded with KLA.

CAS V BAI is simple. CAS is support of troops engaged directly with the enemy. BAI is engagement of enemy targets not in direct contact with friendly forces but in the area of operations. Strike is attack on long range targets.

E.g.:

Infantry platoon calling in an airstrike on a tank that’s pinning his platoon down = CAS

Aircraft hitting tank park behind enemy lines = BAI

Destroying a tank factory = strategic strike.

CAS is also always against enemy combatants whilst BAI can be infrastructure such as bridges, railheads etc in which case the goal is to disrupt enemy movement.

From this definition, the A-10s still a great asset for CAS with it’s big whopping gun (great for close in work where a bomb is excessive), good flight characteristics and ruggedness.

You can’t always lob a bomb in CAS as friendly troops could get caught by the explosion or margin of error is too low.

That’s why US Army loves the A-10 and they operate hundreds of AH-64s.

For BAI and strike, long range interdictors ala F-15 or Tornado are excellent. They’re fast (less time over enemy airspace), carry a good a load in less restrictive attack profiles (i.e. using bombs).

The drones are currently used for CAS and assasination. They lack a gun for close in work (that’s where attack helicopter or fast mover comes in). In a higher threat zone they lack speed and ruggedness.

Ananda’s comments on the blk25 deal are also interesting in comparison to the Philippines US$450mn deal for 12 FA-50’s. 34 6000-hr remaining blk25’s for a little over twice the price of 12 new build FA-50’s?. Interesting choice there…but a good illustrator of why there isnt more interest in developing a new lightfighter as per the original spec.

Different requirements.

Indoensia already operates light fighters in the form of Hawk 100/200 and is also acquiring TA-50s to replace Hawk 53s.

Indonesia is sorely lacking in supersonic air defence – they have a total of 10 Su-27/Su-30 (+6 more on order) and 10 F-16A/B’s most of which aren’t operational. 12-16 F-5s are also stored.

Philippines on the other hand are looking to restore a capability lost in 2002. An F-16 would be too much of a leap.

The numbers of operational aircraft is probably lower. The Pakistanis have a high attrition rate. In 2012 they lost 11 a/c including 3 F-7s and 4 Mirages in various accidents. In 2011 it was at least 8 in accidents (including 1 F-7 and 2 Mirage) plus 2 P-3C in a terrorist attack.
.

Thobbes,

The way I see it there are plenty of available 2nd user strikefighter options knocking around. At the bottom end you may have things like the Mirage F1 upgrade discussed here so recently for Argentina. Serviceable launch platform for AASM, AM39 and MICA for very little outlay. Up to things like the block 25 F-16C’s at in AMARC right now. Some there will be 7000hr jobs, but, the average is meant to be around 5500 across the fleet and the early blks could be stretched out to 8000hrs perhaps a bit farther. Scratch out a dozen with 2500hrs left on ’em and you’ve got a decent 10yrs with the ‘make el presidente look pretty cool’ box ticked.

Other than Gabon (ex-SAAF Mirage F1As) the Mirage F1 appears to have no future sales prospects. Indeed Argentina doesn’t want them either!

As for the second hand F-16s, I guess we’ll wait and see. Personally I don’t see many sales prospects for them – as stated operators preferred already upgraded F-16A/B MLUs or ADFs as opposed to Blk 25s.

The assumption is there that it would buy them (single role types) if it could afford them. What you are ignoring is the heavy change in the nature of CAS delivery. Trashfire has always been a risky place to run your primary engagement profiles through. Clearly A-10/A-9/Su-25 were the zenith of the design effort into understanding and, through various means, defeating that environment in order to place ordnance and get the brittle and crunchy nut holding the stick back to base. No-one is designing that aircraft anymore because todays threat environment has evolved from the Romb and Shilka that A-10 (for example) was meant to evade and is now simply too high to operate in succesfully. ROE for ALLIED FORCE had a minimum safe altitude set at something on the order of 10k ft, going from poor memory, and that was a decade and a half back.

Allied Force did not involve CAS – it was pure strike/interdiction. The two are vastly different.

Furthermore Allied Force did not involve great hit rates on Serbian ground targets due to high altitude tactics.

The A-10 is still highly regarded in CAS role in Afghanistan and Iraq. From what has been published, it is still preferred over F-16/F/A-18 etc for CAS. Interestingly enough the only other assets that have matched that praise are UCAVs.

CAS involves strafing runs as well as “shock and awe” low level flypasts.

I think with A-10 there is a pilot mindset as well. Hog drivers bread and butter is CAS, an F-16/F/A-18/whatever pilot’s is not and probably thinks his/her main job is shooting down non-existent MiGs.

I dont see the importance of replacing Tornado. The CASOM missions out of Marham during Ellamy showed up that long-range interdictor capability as marginal enough…when Charles de Gaulle started sending off Rafales with SCALP things just got worse. Rapid forward deployment is going to be the more valuable tool in future…we just dont need another noe penetrator optimised to hit eastern Europe!.

Comparison is between Eurofighter and Tornado. Is a Eurofighter going to be better at strike than a Tornado?

No. France needed 336 to maintain its previous, Cold War, force level. It is focussing its efforts on getting all the Rafales it can out of the budget and is looking to get on the development path for UAV/UCAV….hence Neuron, Telemos etc.

Point is it’s a force with dwindling numbers and no longer capable of sustaining many different types.

No. Air forces with money are buying high end strikefighters. Thats not a point thats at issue here. I’m saying that the high end forces are looking to unmanned for a light strike adjunct….

Yet UCAV for light strike has seen very limited sales – Italy and RAF and then not as replacement for existing aircraft.

UCAV’s have not replaced A-37s, Strikemasters, A-4s, F-5s, MB326s. The current light strike aircraft of choice are the EMB-314 Super Tucano and Mi-35. Even the USAF/USN are running programs looking at the Super Tucano.

Most non-US UAV’s have been purchased exclusively for recce.

[quote]

not that anyones replacing their entire fleet with UAV’s. I happen to agree that UAV’s are limited platforms, but, those missions like ISTAR/light strike/Comms that they can do…they do very well indeed.[/qupte]

Totally agree on that. However most operators are not embracing the light strike UCAV and are instead either upgrading to more high end jets or are buying light turboprops/attack helicopters or are just continuing to fly whatever they have.

So what?. The point under contention is CAS in 2013-15…either way thats peering into an imaging sensor from a platform a long way above the threat systems lethal envelope. Either you believe there will be a manned type to do this….that no-one is building in a recognised sense….or it will be unmanned and one of the number of designs flying or in development.

For 2013-15 the best CAS is still the A-10 Thunderbolt and AH-64 Apache.

With regards to threat envelopes the last 3 wars fought by US-NATO have had virtually no threat envelope (Libya, Mali, Afghanistan). Helicopters lost in Afghanistan have been mainly to small arms and RPGs at extreme low altitude.

EDIT: Actually the proliferation of helicopter gunships and especially Mi-35s is something we have ignored in this discussion.

The answer is pretty much no then Tempest. Small airforces need more than just CAS and would go for one of the cheap multirole types like JF-17 or FA-50 if they wanted new. That market, cheap strikefighter, isnt big enough to support many more designs and its doubtful that S.Korea would have developed FA-50 if it hadnt leveraged the trainer. See EADS Mako for proof that even that isnt necessarily enough.

Problem is cheap and bountiful second hand F-16, MiG-29 and Su-25 as well as J-7.

These don’t really exist anymore.

As for FA-50, not the first time a fighter has been leveraged off a trainer – the F-5A/B would probably have not made it had it not been for the US adoption of T-38 Talon.

Also how multi-role is JF-17?

For what it’s worth, I think the Yak-130 will be a good seller. It has benefits of not only being cheaper than European aircraft but also a no-questions asked policy.

If the USA adopts TA-50 in anyway, shape or form (possible T-38 replacement), I could see it becoming an F-5 for the 21st century.

Developed airforces dont want a cheap CAS platform thats manned. Italy, as per Thobbes list, is replacing AMX’s with F-35’s. UK and France are replacing single role CAS types and not with new single-role CAS types. The US is weighing heavily in on unmanned and even the Russian Su-25 replacement, if it happens, is intended to be an LO design and have an advanced sensor fit…not really cheap sounding!.

The issue with those European air forces you name is that for the most part they are in decline and can no longer afford single task types.

Britain is expected to shrink to some 160 Typhoons and 48 F-35 (with future F-35s to replace Typhoons). I am dubious as to single seat Eurofighter’s ability to replace Tornado with 100% equivalent or better capability.

France needed some 336 Rafales to replace Super Etendard, M2000C/D/N/-5, Mirage F1 and F-8 Crusaders. It has 180 on order. The original requirement was for 336 and this has been progressively cut to 272 and it is possible 180 is the limit.

Italy has slashed F-35 buy from 131 to 90 and given economic problems even that may be a stretch.

Air Forces with money are still buying aircraft with with a primary tasking:

Saudi Arabia – Air Defence: Eurofighter, Strike: F-15SA
Singapore – Air Defence: F-16, Strike: F-15SG
South Korea – same as above as well as light fighter F/A-50.
Russia: Air Defence: Su-35, Multirole: Su-30, Strike: Su-34
China: Air Defence: J-11, J-10, J-20 Multirole: Su-30, Strike: JH-7. Not sure what J-31 is.
USA: Plans to continue using single primary role tasked F-22, A-10, F-15E after introduction of F-35.

Australia has also brought ground attack tasked F/A-18Fs.

If you’re rich enough and/or invest enough of your GDP into defence, then single tasked dedicated jets are far better than multi-role jacks of all trade and masters of none.

Aircraft designed around a single task have usually been the undisputed best in those fields – F-14, F-15, A-10, F-106, Tornado strike variant, A-4, A-6 etc. Even F-111 became a world beater when it was retasked to strike only.

Multirole involves too many compromises in terms of aerodynamic performance and is a difficult juggling act to achieve. Whilst you can add electronics and hang bombs and missiles off nearly anything, there are compromises in terms of payload, performance, range etc.

Of course after the Cold War, there’s not many air forces that can afford single tasked types.

If you are a, moderately, advanced airforce and you need a cheap adjunct to your high-end multirole strikefighter…its unmanned and does more than just ripple off half a dozen Brimstones.

Yet the true interest does not seem there. Most air forces still seem to prefer a manned jet.

Sales of UAVs have been primarily for recce purposes and then very often anti-terrorist/anti-insurgent operations.

Sales of weapons capable UAVs has been limited and most operators are still buying manned combat aircraft.