The A-10 is also designed with built-in redundancy, meaning it has multiple similar systems
By Kris Osborn, Warrior
The idea suggested by some that there could someday be a "stealthy" A-10 variant would seem like an absurd contradiction in terms, as the aircraft is intended to fly low and slow in sight of enemy ground troops delivering critical life saving air fires in support of advancing infantry. This basic concept would make the idea of "stealth" for an A-10 somewhat of an oxymoron or contradiction in terms, as the entire aim of stealth technology is to ensure an aircraft is not "seen" by enemy forces line-of-sight or radar. An A-10, however, is known as a flying tank, intended to operate within view of both friendly and enemy forces and "absorb" massive amounts of incoming small arms fire with its titanium hull.
Flying Tank
The A-10 is also designed with built-in redundancy, meaning it has multiple similar systems and components to help ensure the aircraft can fly in the event that part of the aircraft is damaged by enemy fire. There is a famous story of a Gulf War pilot who explained to Warrior on the 25th anniversary of the Gulf War that he was able to fly and land an A-10 with one wing, after the other had been shot off by enemy fire. The entire premise of the A-10 and the components with which it has been built, center upon the clear recognition that the aircraft will operate while "in view" of enemy forces to a large extent. The large piece of flying "heavy metal" flying in close proximity to advancing ground troops would be nearly impossible to "hide" from enemy view.
However, the concept of a stealthy A -10 or A-10-like capacity aligns very closely with Air Force deliberations about the future of the Close Air Support (CAS) mission. What if a faster, higher-altitude stealthy aircraft could operate with the sensing, targeting and weaponry to blanket ground areas with suppressive and precision fires while flying at safer stand-off ranges? Newer sensing technologies and aircraft weapons applications are now positioned to survey ground movements, target specific enemy areas and potentially "blanket" them with fire. In the case of the F-35, it seems it would pertain to the range of its side-mounted 25mm cannon.
Area Attack?
Could the aircraft attack enemy ground forces with this cannon as an "area" attack weapon while remaining undetected or less detected by enemy ground forces. This is a critical question, as a main element of the A-10 is to not only deliver precision air-to-ground rocket fire with weapons such as the Maverick but also provide suppressive "area" fire across enemy ground formations to enable friendly troops to maneuver into position and "close" with an enemy. Clearly an F-35 could attack with precision air-to-ground rockets and bombs, but could it get close enough to spray or blanket areas with small arms or cannon fire like an A-10 can? Could it go fast enough to fire upon enemy positions without being targeted successfully by RPGs and incoming enemy ground fire? This seems to be an operative question, particularly because it is not clear if an F-35 or 4th-generation fighter is built with any ability to survive small arms fire. In recent years, this debate has occupied a central resting place in the hearts and minds of Air Force weapons developers, ground forces as even members of Congress wrestling with the question of how and when to divest the A-10
These tactical scenarios have for years informed the debate about the CAS mission and the aircraft best suited to perform it successfully in combat. Some have argued that there is simply "no" substitute for the life-saving "flying tank" kind of capabilities fundamental to the A-10, whereas others have argued that high-speed 4th and 5th-generation fighter jets are better positioned to succeed with the CAS mission in a modern threat environment where enemies operate with longer-range, more precise ground-to-air fire. Would an A-10 be far more vulnerable today than it may have been in previous years due to the arrival of new kinds of ground-to-air munitions? Answers to these unknowns all seem critical to this question, yet there is a clear conceptual foundation or framework to the issue. Should a stealthy, fast, high altitude fighter jet operate with a capacity to "blanket" and "cover" areas of enemy forces while remaining out of view, then perhaps and F-35 or 4th-gen aircraft might be better suited for the task. However, this would require long-range targeting and various kinds of guided and unguided munitions to achieve an A-10-like tactical effect.
Kris Osborn is President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University