Posted on 01/07/2018 9:31:23 PM PST by Kartographer
That is my understanding too. They are to be used as a more lethal version of the SkyTractor’s that are being employed now by some of our allies. I am over here in the ME and have been able to actually look them over. In any event, they are not an A-10.
Good design well built.
Yessir .......agree.
What replaces a C-47? Another C-47.What replaces a C-130? Another C-130.You get the idea.
They could but they wont.
No other plane takes a lick’n and keeps on tick’n like the A10 warthog.
I think the real replacement for the A10 is an unmanned drone controlled by troops on the ground.
A drone with a camera, 4 Hellfire missiles, a chain gun and 500lbs of bombs would be cheap to build and easy to deploy
That is just speculation but it seems to be where things are headed.
No twin tail? Lower stability when damaged under fire.
That bird has a glass chin.No way in hell that thing survives unimproved surfaces.That has got to be the smoothest dirt strip I have ever seen.No rocks or ruts like in the real world.Man I cant believe they are trying to pass that thing off as tough.
“Overkill’’? I dunno. I’ve had the privilege of knowing a young Marine some years ago who served in Afghanistan and had his life saved by an A-10. The way he spoke about that plane and how it saved his squad I’m thinking overkill is a good thing.
#19. No, the A-10 is “too expensive and are overkill for this mission” against guerrillas in Afghanistan.
Must disagree. Whatever their operational cost, their success rate is very high in terms of not only hitting their targets but totally destroying them with their tremendous firepower.
The do not do “overkill”. They do “total kill”. I’ve seen the films and the bodies. Party on dudes!
I'm partial to the AT-6
These aircraft are cheaper to operate and can respond faster than the A-10 in many circumstances.
The ability to respond quickly to disrupt and break up an attack or ambush as soon as possible after contact is a nice thing to have and these smaller aircraft can provide that sort of support and then stick around to act as FAC for larger aircraft or artillery support afterwards
You might think so, but for the most part, you could have the complete set of shop manuals for an A-10 and they would show you that part no 345-2299108-rev 03 goes over here and is held in by 8 screws of type-—whatever.
But there is no place where you can go to get the manufacturing details of that 345—— part; you don’t know how long x wide x high it is...beyond your ability to measure it which obviously could be done and accurately so. That information is gone. The shop manual for your 1963 Ford doesn’t show you how to make a distributor, nor the points.
But even more removed is the tooling, the dies and fixtures required to make hundreds of that part all identical, precisely so it can exist in a sealed package labeled 345-xxxx and available to the mechanic who does not need to manufacture it and does not want to and probably does not have the tools to machine said part where his job is to fix airplanes. We know for sure that stuff is long gone.
All this is not to say that these parts could not be laser scanned by some whiz-bang machine and reproduced via 3D printing or other means. That would be a pretty pricey project, but probably 1/500th as costly as developing a new plane from scratch.
Agree. Airplanes that land on dirt are traditionally Army airplanes.
So how do these light attack/forward observation aircraft compare to the OV10 Bronco? And why does the US Military keep having to reinvent the wheel?
So how do these light attack/forward observation aircraft compare to the OV10 Bronco? And why does the US Military keep having to reinvent the wheel?
I have known a lot of pilots, most of whom want a faster and more maneuverable plane. For the air-to-mud mission, the grunts on the ground should have as much say as the guys in the air.
Agree from what I’ve seen so far. I don’t know enough to comment on cost/schedule as I’m out of the loop for that. Now you’ve got me interested in how the AirTrackers have been in operational use, will ask around and report back if I find out. I’ve only seen them in person further up the deployment chain. Pretty cockpit for a “crop duster”. :)
It’s not that you can’t build more; however the tools are, in fact, gone. So is the expertise. You could recreate all of that which would cost the same as developing a new aircraft.
All that expense would produce an aircraft that is, unfortunately, obsolete due to advances in air defense systems.
When the A10 was built it was never intended to be used for close air support. It was intended to be cheap and fielded in numbers as a dedicated anti tank system. We were trying to find ways to blunt the Soviets’ 10 to 1 numerical advantage in armor. Though it was not meant for CAS it’s design feature lent itself well to that and that’s mostly how it’s being used.
At the time it was designed the main air defense threat it faced was low altitude AAA (ZSU-23 and similar) and man portable SAMs. It was armored to be protected from those threats. The armor worked, such systems were used against A10s in Desert Storm; most of us remember the news footage of A10s that looked like they’d been beaver chewed making it back to base. The larger, and more dangerous SAMs could easily swat an A10 out of the sky, but they fly so low that they could avoid those types of missiles.
That was 25 years ago. Things changed. The larger, more effective SAM systems are not myopic to low altitude aircraft like they once were. That leaves A10s in the same spot as B-52s. They are effective but cannot be used against a near peer enemy in a contested environment. If we, hypothetically, went to war with China sending in A10s without first obliterating *all* air defense would accomplish nothing but get a lot of American pilots killed. Modern air defense systems would drop them like flies and by the time the environment was permissive enough to use them, a near peer enemy would be likely crying uncle. Also, we wouldn’t have enough of them to go around against a more widespread enemy like China. There would be a shortage in available air frames.
Thus, the light attack aircraft the USAF is looking into. It also has to be used in a permissive environment which means bombing terrorists or near peer enemies after complete local suppression of air defense and air power. The difference is that there are cheap; cheaper than the A10. You can buy a small horde of them and have enough onhand to bring CAS to bear any time, anywhere.
As for its lack of anti tank weapons, other aircraft have long since already taken over that role from the A10. Right now it’s F-16s and will be F-35s in the future. Neither of those have the 30mm cannon but again...the A10 is a 40ish year old design. The 30mm was effective against Soviet tanks of the era, proven 25 years ago in Desert Storm. It is not effective against modern designs; also, the A10s primary anti tank system was always missiles. Missiles that the F-16 and F-35 can carry as well, and they can operate in environments that would be almost instantly lethal to the A10.
I think it’s a neat aircraft but it’s day has come and gone. A dedicated CAS aircraft can be bought and maintained for cheaper than keeping the aging A10 in the air, and the high intensity aerial conflict fought against near peer adversaries in the opening stages of a conflict is the realm of the F-16, F-15, F-35, and F-22.
The problem with the A-10 Warthog is it’s too good. To reliable. Too cheap to maintain. How the hell are military contractors supposed to get fat contracts off of that! And what about the ability of congressmen to get campaign contributions from defense contractors? This aircraft doesn’t help them at all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.