A-10 Warthog

[104th_Crunch]

That A-10 is a bloody marvel of engineering.

[wickedpenguin]

I was working a radar sector today when I noticed a group of fast-moving targets just outside my airspace, six of them in all. Curious, I looked them up and found out they were a gaggle of six A-10s. I won't state the callsign, but let's just say it was very apropo for an airplane built around a big freaking gun.

 

As they were going across, I was also working a law enforcement aircraft who was chasing a suspect on the move. A crazy idea came to mind: what if, when it comes time to retire the A-10s from the Air Force inventory, they get sent to U.S. Customs, the Coast Guard, or the DEA?

 

That would strike a little fear into the cartels, dontcha think? I'd like to see a go-fast boat deal with a little 30mm depleted uranium up the stern. :P

Edited March 6, 2010 by wickedpenguin

[Hunt3r.j2]

That A-10 is a bloody marvel of KABOOOOOOOOOM.

:music_whistling:

[Speed]

 

That would strike a little fear into the cartels, dontcha think? I'd like to see a go-fast boat deal with a little 30mm depleted uranium up the stern. :P

 

With the requirements of today's wars, I don't think we have ENOUGH low, slow, gunship-type aircraft. The A-10 is proving an incredibly useful and versitile ground attack aircraft... I don't think that its retirement is coming anytime soon, unless the USAF makes a very bone-headed decision.

[TKMR]

With the requirements of today's wars, I don't think we have ENOUGH low, slow, gunship-type aircraft. The A-10 is proving an incredibly useful and versitile ground attack aircraft... I don't think that its retirement is coming anytime soon, unless the USAF makes a very bone-headed decision.

 

 

IIRC the USAF WILL replace the A-10 with the F-35. I'll see if I can pull up a source.

 

EDIT:

Perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the Air Force fighter roadmap is that involving the A-10, an aircraft the service has moved to retire several times in the last decade. Now, rather than phase out the venerable Warthog, the service plans to retain the type at least to 2028, through the use of a comprehensive life extension program.

 

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/March%202007/0307force.aspx

Edited March 6, 2010 by TKMR

[wickedpenguin]

IIRC the USAF WILL replace the A-10 with the F-35. I'll see if I can pull up a source.

 

Yeap - that's the plan. I'm certain that the F-35 will be far better in terms of situational awareness via datalink, time-to-target speed, total weapons payload, and of course less vulnerable to radar / IR detection. However, I don't believe it will be nearly as good in terms of loiter time, and absolutely cannot compete in terms of damage survivability and maintainability.

[EtherealN]

Wait... F-35 to beat the A10 in total weapon payload?

 

...not while maintaining it's "big thing", Low-Observability, it ain't... And even if discarding that and using external stations... I'm still in doubt.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Isn't it sort of expensive to throw US$ 83M aircraft against insurgents and stuff? It's invisible in the radar, but when you have a big gun and at least one Eyeball Mk.1, things can go very wrong...

 

Or they're talking about replacing the A-10 in medium ground attack roles by the F-35 and leave CAS, COIN and other light attack missions for either the EMB-314 or A-67 (not aware of the details, only overheard about USAF's interest on them)?

 

(Just commenting: Judging by the (only) picture of it, that A-67 looks rather like a toy than some serious attack aircraft, really :music_whistling:)

[Speed]

IIRC the USAF WILL replace the A-10 with the F-35. I'll see if I can pull up a source.

 

EDIT:

 

 

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/March%202007/0307force.aspx

 

 

Thanks for that source TKMR. Like I thought, the USAF finally has seen the value of retaining the A-10 for quite a while longer. I'm wondering if the USAF will consider bringing back the prop-driven super-cheap CAS aircraft, like with the AT-6 Texan II. I guess the threat of MANPADs may still be too high for that, we'll probably stick with the drones. I just think that the USAF is just going too high tech and expensive these days, we need a mix of the cheap but many, and few and expensive. I'm guessing the cheap and many will become the drones and the few and expensive be the manned aircraft.

[wickedpenguin]

Wait... F-35 to beat the A10 in total weapon payload?

 

...not while maintaining it's "big thing", Low-Observability, it ain't... And even if discarding that and using external stations... I'm still in doubt.

 

I was surprised too - the F-35 (according to Wikipedia) will carry 2000 lbs. more than the A-10. That's of course taking into account use of external stores, and is most likely the lighter F-35A model, since the B version has all the extra VTOL hardware and the C version is strengthened for carrier ops.

 

Isn't it sort of expensive to throw US$ 83M aircraft against insurgents and stuff? It's invisible in the radar, but when you have a big gun and at least one Eyeball Mk.1, things can go very wrong...

 

That argument goes both ways. Insurgents don't usually have large, radar guided missile or gun batteries. The biggest guided anti-aircraft weapon you're likely to face are heat-seeking portable SAMs. While external stores will trash the F-35's radar stealth, they don't affect the plane's lower IR signature. And MANPADs still haven't arrived at the level of platform-based IR seekers. I was just reading that the MiG-35 has an IRST seeker so good it can track the difference between the ambient air temperature and the friction heat on an inbound missile's nose. If MANPADs get to that point, all that supercruise-generated heat will become a problem.

 

Still, there's not much that can protect against manually aimed guns. If you've got a good enough gunner - or throw enough flak in the same general direction - you will get a hit. Just ask survivors of the WWII U.S. 8th Air Force. And when those shells hit, I'd rather be in that A-10s titanium bathtub than in an F-35's "glass" cockpit. :)

Edited March 7, 2010 by wickedpenguin

[EtherealN]

Indeed wicked, that is very interesting. Though obviously Wikipedia is doubtful as a source, but still. I guess the big question really is practical payloads, not total max, since you will seriously affect loiter times and such when you increase the weight. Will be very hard to get a non-classified source for that on the F-35 though.

[element1108]

I was surprised too - the F-35 (according to Wikipedia) will carry 2000 lbs. more than the A-10. That's of course taking into account use of external stores, and is most likely the lighter F-35A model, since the B version has all the extra VTOL hardware and the C version is strengthened for carrier ops.

 

 

 

That argument goes both ways. Insurgents don't usually have large, radar guided missile or gun batteries. The biggest guided anti-aircraft weapon you're likely to face are heat-seeking portable SAMs. While external stores will trash the F-35's radar stealth, they don't affect the plane's lower IR signature. And MANPADs still haven't arrived at the level of platform-based IR seekers. I was just reading that the MiG-35 has an IRST seeker so good it can track the difference between the ambient air temperature and the friction heat on an inbound missile's nose. If MANPADs get to that point, all that supercruise-generated heat will become a problem.

 

Still, there's not much that can protect against manually aimed guns. If you've got a good enough gunner - or throw enough flak in the same general direction - you will get a hit. Just ask survivors of the WWII U.S. 8th Air Force. And when those shells hit, I'd rather be in that A-10s titanium bathtub than in an F-35's "glass" cockpit. :)

 

True that, plus the fact the A-10 has proven itself under these circumstances quite nicely. Everything so far with the F-35 is still theory.

[joey45]

The only thing that can replace the A10 is another A10... Not a multirole fighter.

[bogusheadbox]

The only thing that can replace the A10 is another A10... Not a multirole fighter.

 

F-15 SG?

 

Seems like it might sell quite well.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Not quite, as it can't handle light attack properly... but neither can the A-10, as it turns out.

 

It's just overkill. 30mm cannon, great loadout, and it's being used to shoot insurgents with rifles. Rather expensive to operate and with smaller loiter time, when compared to planes made for this purpose.

 

That's why USAF is looking for 100+ light attack planes. My money is on A-29 :music_whistling:

[Speed]

 

If MANPADs get to that point, all that supercruise-generated heat will become a problem.

A little quibble here, if you're low enough to be hit by a MANPAD, you're probably too low to supercruise. I imagine that supercruise can only be done at relatively high altitudes like >20k feet.

 

Solid rocket motor technology is pretty mature, I doubt they will find any way anytime soon to make a small man portable missile that can reach high altitudes. Besides, it's very difficult to spot targets visually at high altitude.

 

On the other hand, IR detectors are very much an evolving technology, I would expect new MANPADs to have staring focal plane arrays with high sensitivity and alot of signal processing to identify targets and discriminate between targets and countermeasures. I would think that maybe instead of trying to spoof IR missiles, anti-IR SAM systems of the future may try to use directed energy to blind them or even destroy them. Advances in imaging and signal processing are making these kinds of things easier and easier, just as they are making it easier and easier for an IR missile to be able to track targets and ignore flares. Heck, the Army even wants to shoot down incoming anti-tank KE rods, RPGs, etc. on their ground vehicles (not with lasers).

 

Anyway, in this context, where MANPADs become impossible to spoof, and neither the A-10 or the F-35 has the hypothetical active anti-missile system, the A-10 probably has better survivability against MANPADs than the F-35. The F-35 has speed and manuverability going for it, however.

 

That said, with the F-35 having a weak (comparitively) gun, there may be no need or motivation for it to go low enough to be hit by MANPADs!

Edited March 10, 2010 by Speed

[astrospud]

It's just overkill. 30mm cannon, great loadout, and it's being used to shoot insurgents with rifles. Rather expensive to operate and with smaller loiter time, when compared to planes made for this purpose...

 

Coming in late in the thread...

 

Overkill? I'd call that small scale shock and awe - elements of psych warfare.

Just as important as shooting the enemy is scaring the living sh!t out of him, so that he won't want to come out of his foxhole.

[Total]

Carpet bombing is no longer allowed. Precision strikes and strafe runs are the methods now. It costs less to run F/A-18's, Apache's, Warthogs, and Cobra's than it does to run the stealth bombers.

 

As far as the insurgents only having rifles, that's not true either. They still have a nice cache of other munitions as well. When the infantry is pinnned down in hazardous terrain, you call in air support. If the A-10 is needed, the hog will come a running and tear ^%$@ up :D

[Ramstein]

A C-130 Spectre would be nice..

:music_whistling:

Carpet bombing is no longer allowed. Precision strikes and strafe runs are the methods now. It costs less to run F/A-18's, Apache's, Warthogs, and Cobra's than it does to run the stealth bombers.

 

As far as the insurgents only having rifles, that's not true either. They still have a nice cache of other munitions as well. When the infantry is pinnned down in hazardous terrain, you call in air support. If the A-10 is needed, the hog will come a running and tear ^%$@ up :D