A-10 Warthog ungrades
Discussion
Sorry - title should be 'upgrades'
Interesting article by former A-10 pilot Lynn Taylor, in answer to the question "Given carte blanche, how would you improve upon the A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog” ?
Overall, the design is amazing. You could probably just make a few of the refinements listed here, and otherwise build practically the exact same aircraft and it would be good to go, protecting friendly troops on the ground and striking terror in the hearts of the enemy for decades.
So... how to make the greatest close air support aircraft ever built even better to continue its mission in the 21st century? Let me count the ways...
Engines
Even if this was the only thing you changed, it would make a world of difference. The General Electric TF34 is a first generation turbofan. We joke that the A-10 is really a single-engine aircraft, with half an engine on each side.
It really is a great engine, though, and the perfect kind of engine for the Hawg. IIRC, something like 80% of the thrust comes from bypass air instead of what goes through the engine core. It's (relatively) quiet, runs cool, is easy to maintain, and very durable. However, being an old first generation motor, the newer ones are much better.
An upgrade wouldn't even require a new engine design. Back when I was flying Hawgs, we would pine for the same engine used on Canadian biz jets. The General Electric CF34 (a direct descendant of the TF34) has about twice the thrust of the venerable TF34, with only about a 20% increase in fuel flow. The engine mounts would need to be beefed up a bit, but the increased power would more than make up for that.
Computer Processor, Avionics, Electrical, General Gadgetry
There is only so much you can do to upgrade old tech. At some point you need to just completely replace the old and put in something new. The A-10C Precision Engagement upgrade was great, but it would be even nicer to have such a system as part of the core design. This includes GPS, Helmet-mounted display, Blue Force Tracking (or whatever they're calling it these days), etc.
Now, I'm less sold on the idea of a glass cockpit. I might be able to be persuaded, but one of the beautiful things about the A-10 is that it can lose pretty near every system and still bring you home safely. As long as that capability is still there, I guess having digital displays for everything would be okay. Still, I don't know if the cost would justify it, either. Sometimes "good is good enough," and tried and true instrumentation is the way to go. I'd have to leave the financial analysis of the system up to maintenance experts. In today's budget environment, less cost is an uncommon virtue.
Targeting Pod
This might not need changing, but I'll mention it as an item for consideration. The addition of the LITENING targeting pod was a huge leap forward in the A-10's ability to not only enter the realm of precision guided weapons, but also to find, identify, designate, and engage targets. It may be the best solution as-is, but would be worth taking a look at while we're at it.
Parking Brake
Seriously. No, really. The A-10 doesn't have a parking brake. Now, for the uninitiated, this might seem like no big deal, or even a joke. But, for anyone who has had to sit on the ground with engines running, no chocks under the wheels, holding down the brakes to keep from rolling, for 10, 15, 20 minutes or more, you'd understand.
The A-10 does only two things fast: shoot bullets and taxi. Despite having half an engine on each side, for some reason those motors can get you rolling really well in idle. To keep from moving when you're not supposed to requires some steady and firm brake application. It gets pretty tiring on the legs after a while.
So, the addition of a parking brake would be awesome.
Autopilot
The autopilot in the A-10 is a single button that does nothing more than hold the control surfaces in the same position they were in when you push the button. Yup, that's it.
Since all of the jets are bent (hey, they're old), it's only a matter of time before the jet precesses enough that the aerodynamic forces overcome the little "hold" feature, the autopilot disengages, and the jet starts to move like a dog off the leash. While the autopilot is handy, it is not incredibly useful. As a result, A-10 drivers get fairly good at flying straight and level, or in gentle turns, using their knees to move the stick while their hands are busy holding maps, writing on the canopy, etc.
Having a semi-useful autopilot could be handy.
Flush Rivets
Okay, I don't really know how much parasitic drag all of the little protrusions create. For all I know, they act like little boundary layer energizers that help decrease stall speed. If not, though, it might help to have flush rivets instead of those rounded ones that protrude along every seam.
Just another thought.
[Added to the list on 3/2/2017. H/t to Ted Galpin for pointing out the oversight.]
There was once some discussion about fitting the A-10 with the AGM-114 Hellfire. Those things are so small and light, you could almost store extra rounds in your flight suit pockets and chuck 'em out the window at targets. The A-10 could carry a bazillion of them (well, 16 at least), and still have room for everything else and the kitchen sink.
Not so fast, Gordo...
Stealth
The A-10 was designed to operate in a hostile environment where it is taking a lot of fire. Back before we had "real" simulators, we'd joke that the A-10 simulator was when you'd go out back, climb in a dumpster, and they'd throw rocks at you. It's designed to get hit. Not that we'd go looking for that, but it was nice to know that you could take a punch.
Still, the U.S. Air Force plans to operate in an environment where they have air supremacy. Really, we're not going to send a mass of troops into an area where we don't own the skies. We're going to destroy enemy air defenses first, then send in the ground troops. That's where the A-10 thrives.
Uhmmm... no.
So, we don't need a stealthy close air support aircraft. If you need some kind of air support for snake-eaters back behind the line of bristling enemy air defenses, that's when you'll send in your F-35 to drop a bomb or two. The A-10 is for the semi-permissive environment where you need to be a guardian angel for a few hours at a time, hovering over the battlefield, waiting to roll in at a moment's notice.
Fly-by-Wire and Other Fancy Schmancy "Improvements"
Sure, it might give you a marginal improvement in response time. It might reduce weight. It might even reduce some kind of maintenance costs or requirements. I really don't know. What I do know is that the current design is effective, and can be maintained in austere environments.
Don't have a part on hand? Make one in the machine shop. You don't have to wait for a replacement to be manufactured and shipped using the wonders of "just in time inventory." The A-10 is hardy, durable, and relatively easy to maintain. By design.
Fancy Materials
If you have a hole in the A-10, you can patch it with sheet metal and send it back out. If you change to some kind of composite material, you now have to go through a process of preparing, bonding, and curing before the repair is complete.
Keep it simple. Having an aircraft that can get hurt, rub some dirt on it, and get back into the fight is worth its weight in blood... specifically, the blood of friendly troops that will be saved by having the aircraft back in the fight that much sooner.
Engine Placement
Look at the placement of the turbofans. High-mounted and not in the fuselage was design genius. As has been shown many times, engines tend to attract heat-seeking missiles. Having the engines high and outside means an engine can take a solid hit, or even burn up, and not bring the jet down. Also, with the exhaust shielded by the twin tails, it makes it more difficult for those pesky MANPADS to get a lock in the first place.
Having the engines up so high, with the wings blocking debris from below, means that the A-10 can fly in all sorts of locations and conditions that make other fighters huddle in their hangars in fear. Once while I was in Kuwait, there was a C-130 that kicked up all kinds of rocks and dirt onto the taxiway. The other fighters had to cancel their missions until the area was cleaned up so they didn't suck a pebble into their intake. The A-10s? Well, let's just say we didn't need to worry about not having a parking brake, as there was no waiting to take off that day.
Let's see the F-35 do that!
Wings (& 11 Weapons Stations)
The A-10 is intended to be slow (all the better to see you with, my dear), with a long loiter time (all the better to be there when it matters most). The long, straight wings let it do just that. Plus, you can hang a lot of ordnance from 11 wing stations. Just sayin'.
Landing Gear
Every aircraft has a landing distance table that shows how long your landing roll will be under various conditions. The Hawg is the only jet I know of that has landing distance tables for gear-up landings.
While landing gear-up isn't the preferred method, this little detail is another testament to the engineering genius that went into its design (and there's a lot more that I won't even bother mentioning here). If the jet loses all hydraulics and cannot extend its gear, or due to battle damage it would be better to leave them retracted, the jet can still land on its wheels, which is a much safer proposition than trying to land on those other protrusions that might snag on something.
See the chocks under the wheel? Not a joke.
There's a story of an A-10 pilot who had to land gear up, but forgot to pull the lever to activate the emergency reserve hydraulic storage bottle to give pressure to the brakes. He landed, had no brake pressure, and the darned thing rolled right off the end of the runway. A sure fire way to make a bad day worse, and make what could have been a cool story suddenly makes you look a lot less cool.
The Bathtub
The pilot sits in a titanium shell, affectionately known as "the bathtub."
From Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
"The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 1,200 lb (540 kg) of titanium aircraft armor, referred to as a "bathtub". The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds. It is made up of titanium plates with thicknesses from 0.5 to 1.5 inches (13 to 38 mm) determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. The armor makes up almost 6 percent of the aircraft's empty weight. Any interior surface of the tub directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon spall shield to protect against shell fragmentation. The front windscreen and canopy are resistant to small arms fire."
Yeah, keep that.
Manual Reversion & Durability
I'll send you over to How does the A-10 stack against MANPADS? for a more detailed discussion (and pictures!) of A-10 durability. One particularly nice feature is that the Hawg can lose all of its electrics and all of its hydraulics, and still make it back home.
It has its own sort of "fly by wire" system. Not like the F-16 fly-by-wire. No, this uses actual wires. Like cables. And pulleys. Yes, very vintage, I know. While flying in manual reversion is like trying to drive a semi-truck without power steering, it's good for getting you back over good guy land before stepping over the side and giving the jet back to the taxpayers. If the jet isn't too bad off, some pilots have managed to land a Hawg in manual reversion.
The GAU-8 Avenger Cannon
The most powerful cannon ever on a fighter-scale aircraft. EV-ER.
From the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
"The GAU-8/A is extremely accurate and can fire 4,200 rounds per minute without complications. The 30-mm shell has twice the range, half the time to target, and three times the mass of projectiles fired by guns mounted in comparable close air support aircraft.
"The muzzle velocity of the GAU-8/A is about the same as that of the M61 Vulcan cannon, but the GAU-8/A uses heavier ammunition and has superior ballistics. The time of flight of its projectile to 4,000 feet (1,200 m) is 30 percent less than that of an M61 round; the GAU-8/A projectile decelerates much less rapidly after leaving the barrel, and it drops a negligible amount, about 10 feet (3.0 m) over the distance.
"The GAU-8/A accuracy when installed in the A-10 is rated at "5 mil, 80 percent", meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired will hit within a cone with an angle of five-milliradians. This equates to a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle at the weapon's design range of 4,000 feet (1,200 m). By comparison, the M61 has an 8-milliradian dispersion."
While it may be possible to further improve the design, I don't know what else you could ask for. I mean, really. It's proven, durable, reliable, and highly effective.
And it's cool. Very cool. Not to be underestimated in the fighter/attack world.
IN CONCLUSION
The fact that the jet can lose an engine, half its tail, half a wing, all hydraulics, all electrics, get shot full of holes, and still bring you back home...
Plus, it causes enemy ground troops to cower in fear, flee in terror, or die in rapid succession...
While simultaneously inspiring friendly ground troops with an up-close and personal show of airborne support that is combination air show, fireworks display, and effective beat-down of the enemy...
Well... that's a pretty good design.
BRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT!
(Thanks again!)
[EDIT:]
Oh! One more thing the A-10 could use. A two-seater.
No, this isn't a photoshop. Fairchild built one as a demonstrator for night & all-weather use. It is now on static display at the Edwards AFB museum.
You don't need a two-seater for training, obviously. Your first flight in the A-10 is solo, and that's worked pretty well so far.
There is really only one reason to have a two-seater A-10: Public relations for Congressional funding.
I'm absolutely convinced that if members of Congress (not to mention generals who only know the pointy-nose world) had a chance to ride in a Hawg, to actually feel the difference in how it performs its mission compared to "fast movers," and to experience the unparalleled power of the GAU-8 when it kicks off... the Hawg would live forever.
Interesting article by former A-10 pilot Lynn Taylor, in answer to the question "Given carte blanche, how would you improve upon the A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog” ?
Overall, the design is amazing. You could probably just make a few of the refinements listed here, and otherwise build practically the exact same aircraft and it would be good to go, protecting friendly troops on the ground and striking terror in the hearts of the enemy for decades.
So... how to make the greatest close air support aircraft ever built even better to continue its mission in the 21st century? Let me count the ways...
Engines
Even if this was the only thing you changed, it would make a world of difference. The General Electric TF34 is a first generation turbofan. We joke that the A-10 is really a single-engine aircraft, with half an engine on each side.
It really is a great engine, though, and the perfect kind of engine for the Hawg. IIRC, something like 80% of the thrust comes from bypass air instead of what goes through the engine core. It's (relatively) quiet, runs cool, is easy to maintain, and very durable. However, being an old first generation motor, the newer ones are much better.
An upgrade wouldn't even require a new engine design. Back when I was flying Hawgs, we would pine for the same engine used on Canadian biz jets. The General Electric CF34 (a direct descendant of the TF34) has about twice the thrust of the venerable TF34, with only about a 20% increase in fuel flow. The engine mounts would need to be beefed up a bit, but the increased power would more than make up for that.
Computer Processor, Avionics, Electrical, General Gadgetry
There is only so much you can do to upgrade old tech. At some point you need to just completely replace the old and put in something new. The A-10C Precision Engagement upgrade was great, but it would be even nicer to have such a system as part of the core design. This includes GPS, Helmet-mounted display, Blue Force Tracking (or whatever they're calling it these days), etc.
Now, I'm less sold on the idea of a glass cockpit. I might be able to be persuaded, but one of the beautiful things about the A-10 is that it can lose pretty near every system and still bring you home safely. As long as that capability is still there, I guess having digital displays for everything would be okay. Still, I don't know if the cost would justify it, either. Sometimes "good is good enough," and tried and true instrumentation is the way to go. I'd have to leave the financial analysis of the system up to maintenance experts. In today's budget environment, less cost is an uncommon virtue.
Targeting Pod
This might not need changing, but I'll mention it as an item for consideration. The addition of the LITENING targeting pod was a huge leap forward in the A-10's ability to not only enter the realm of precision guided weapons, but also to find, identify, designate, and engage targets. It may be the best solution as-is, but would be worth taking a look at while we're at it.
Parking Brake
Seriously. No, really. The A-10 doesn't have a parking brake. Now, for the uninitiated, this might seem like no big deal, or even a joke. But, for anyone who has had to sit on the ground with engines running, no chocks under the wheels, holding down the brakes to keep from rolling, for 10, 15, 20 minutes or more, you'd understand.
The A-10 does only two things fast: shoot bullets and taxi. Despite having half an engine on each side, for some reason those motors can get you rolling really well in idle. To keep from moving when you're not supposed to requires some steady and firm brake application. It gets pretty tiring on the legs after a while.
So, the addition of a parking brake would be awesome.
Autopilot
The autopilot in the A-10 is a single button that does nothing more than hold the control surfaces in the same position they were in when you push the button. Yup, that's it.
Since all of the jets are bent (hey, they're old), it's only a matter of time before the jet precesses enough that the aerodynamic forces overcome the little "hold" feature, the autopilot disengages, and the jet starts to move like a dog off the leash. While the autopilot is handy, it is not incredibly useful. As a result, A-10 drivers get fairly good at flying straight and level, or in gentle turns, using their knees to move the stick while their hands are busy holding maps, writing on the canopy, etc.
Having a semi-useful autopilot could be handy.
Flush Rivets
Okay, I don't really know how much parasitic drag all of the little protrusions create. For all I know, they act like little boundary layer energizers that help decrease stall speed. If not, though, it might help to have flush rivets instead of those rounded ones that protrude along every seam.
Just another thought.
- shrug*
[Added to the list on 3/2/2017. H/t to Ted Galpin for pointing out the oversight.]
There was once some discussion about fitting the A-10 with the AGM-114 Hellfire. Those things are so small and light, you could almost store extra rounds in your flight suit pockets and chuck 'em out the window at targets. The A-10 could carry a bazillion of them (well, 16 at least), and still have room for everything else and the kitchen sink.
- WHAT IT DOES NOT NEED**
Not so fast, Gordo...
Stealth
The A-10 was designed to operate in a hostile environment where it is taking a lot of fire. Back before we had "real" simulators, we'd joke that the A-10 simulator was when you'd go out back, climb in a dumpster, and they'd throw rocks at you. It's designed to get hit. Not that we'd go looking for that, but it was nice to know that you could take a punch.
Still, the U.S. Air Force plans to operate in an environment where they have air supremacy. Really, we're not going to send a mass of troops into an area where we don't own the skies. We're going to destroy enemy air defenses first, then send in the ground troops. That's where the A-10 thrives.
Uhmmm... no.
So, we don't need a stealthy close air support aircraft. If you need some kind of air support for snake-eaters back behind the line of bristling enemy air defenses, that's when you'll send in your F-35 to drop a bomb or two. The A-10 is for the semi-permissive environment where you need to be a guardian angel for a few hours at a time, hovering over the battlefield, waiting to roll in at a moment's notice.
Fly-by-Wire and Other Fancy Schmancy "Improvements"
Sure, it might give you a marginal improvement in response time. It might reduce weight. It might even reduce some kind of maintenance costs or requirements. I really don't know. What I do know is that the current design is effective, and can be maintained in austere environments.
Don't have a part on hand? Make one in the machine shop. You don't have to wait for a replacement to be manufactured and shipped using the wonders of "just in time inventory." The A-10 is hardy, durable, and relatively easy to maintain. By design.
Fancy Materials
If you have a hole in the A-10, you can patch it with sheet metal and send it back out. If you change to some kind of composite material, you now have to go through a process of preparing, bonding, and curing before the repair is complete.
Keep it simple. Having an aircraft that can get hurt, rub some dirt on it, and get back into the fight is worth its weight in blood... specifically, the blood of friendly troops that will be saved by having the aircraft back in the fight that much sooner.
- STUFF TO KEEP**
Engine Placement
Look at the placement of the turbofans. High-mounted and not in the fuselage was design genius. As has been shown many times, engines tend to attract heat-seeking missiles. Having the engines high and outside means an engine can take a solid hit, or even burn up, and not bring the jet down. Also, with the exhaust shielded by the twin tails, it makes it more difficult for those pesky MANPADS to get a lock in the first place.
Having the engines up so high, with the wings blocking debris from below, means that the A-10 can fly in all sorts of locations and conditions that make other fighters huddle in their hangars in fear. Once while I was in Kuwait, there was a C-130 that kicked up all kinds of rocks and dirt onto the taxiway. The other fighters had to cancel their missions until the area was cleaned up so they didn't suck a pebble into their intake. The A-10s? Well, let's just say we didn't need to worry about not having a parking brake, as there was no waiting to take off that day.
Let's see the F-35 do that!
Wings (& 11 Weapons Stations)
The A-10 is intended to be slow (all the better to see you with, my dear), with a long loiter time (all the better to be there when it matters most). The long, straight wings let it do just that. Plus, you can hang a lot of ordnance from 11 wing stations. Just sayin'.
Landing Gear
Every aircraft has a landing distance table that shows how long your landing roll will be under various conditions. The Hawg is the only jet I know of that has landing distance tables for gear-up landings.
While landing gear-up isn't the preferred method, this little detail is another testament to the engineering genius that went into its design (and there's a lot more that I won't even bother mentioning here). If the jet loses all hydraulics and cannot extend its gear, or due to battle damage it would be better to leave them retracted, the jet can still land on its wheels, which is a much safer proposition than trying to land on those other protrusions that might snag on something.
See the chocks under the wheel? Not a joke.
There's a story of an A-10 pilot who had to land gear up, but forgot to pull the lever to activate the emergency reserve hydraulic storage bottle to give pressure to the brakes. He landed, had no brake pressure, and the darned thing rolled right off the end of the runway. A sure fire way to make a bad day worse, and make what could have been a cool story suddenly makes you look a lot less cool.
The Bathtub
The pilot sits in a titanium shell, affectionately known as "the bathtub."
From Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
"The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 1,200 lb (540 kg) of titanium aircraft armor, referred to as a "bathtub". The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds. It is made up of titanium plates with thicknesses from 0.5 to 1.5 inches (13 to 38 mm) determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. The armor makes up almost 6 percent of the aircraft's empty weight. Any interior surface of the tub directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon spall shield to protect against shell fragmentation. The front windscreen and canopy are resistant to small arms fire."
Yeah, keep that.
Manual Reversion & Durability
I'll send you over to How does the A-10 stack against MANPADS? for a more detailed discussion (and pictures!) of A-10 durability. One particularly nice feature is that the Hawg can lose all of its electrics and all of its hydraulics, and still make it back home.
It has its own sort of "fly by wire" system. Not like the F-16 fly-by-wire. No, this uses actual wires. Like cables. And pulleys. Yes, very vintage, I know. While flying in manual reversion is like trying to drive a semi-truck without power steering, it's good for getting you back over good guy land before stepping over the side and giving the jet back to the taxpayers. If the jet isn't too bad off, some pilots have managed to land a Hawg in manual reversion.
The GAU-8 Avenger Cannon
The most powerful cannon ever on a fighter-scale aircraft. EV-ER.
From the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
"The GAU-8/A is extremely accurate and can fire 4,200 rounds per minute without complications. The 30-mm shell has twice the range, half the time to target, and three times the mass of projectiles fired by guns mounted in comparable close air support aircraft.
"The muzzle velocity of the GAU-8/A is about the same as that of the M61 Vulcan cannon, but the GAU-8/A uses heavier ammunition and has superior ballistics. The time of flight of its projectile to 4,000 feet (1,200 m) is 30 percent less than that of an M61 round; the GAU-8/A projectile decelerates much less rapidly after leaving the barrel, and it drops a negligible amount, about 10 feet (3.0 m) over the distance.
"The GAU-8/A accuracy when installed in the A-10 is rated at "5 mil, 80 percent", meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired will hit within a cone with an angle of five-milliradians. This equates to a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle at the weapon's design range of 4,000 feet (1,200 m). By comparison, the M61 has an 8-milliradian dispersion."
While it may be possible to further improve the design, I don't know what else you could ask for. I mean, really. It's proven, durable, reliable, and highly effective.
And it's cool. Very cool. Not to be underestimated in the fighter/attack world.
IN CONCLUSION
The fact that the jet can lose an engine, half its tail, half a wing, all hydraulics, all electrics, get shot full of holes, and still bring you back home...
Plus, it causes enemy ground troops to cower in fear, flee in terror, or die in rapid succession...
While simultaneously inspiring friendly ground troops with an up-close and personal show of airborne support that is combination air show, fireworks display, and effective beat-down of the enemy...
Well... that's a pretty good design.
BRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT!
(Thanks again!)
[EDIT:]
Oh! One more thing the A-10 could use. A two-seater.
No, this isn't a photoshop. Fairchild built one as a demonstrator for night & all-weather use. It is now on static display at the Edwards AFB museum.
You don't need a two-seater for training, obviously. Your first flight in the A-10 is solo, and that's worked pretty well so far.
There is really only one reason to have a two-seater A-10: Public relations for Congressional funding.
I'm absolutely convinced that if members of Congress (not to mention generals who only know the pointy-nose world) had a chance to ride in a Hawg, to actually feel the difference in how it performs its mission compared to "fast movers," and to experience the unparalleled power of the GAU-8 when it kicks off... the Hawg would live forever.
It's still a very useful tool for close air support. The USAF have wanted to get rid of it for ages. However, the Army loves it and always fights for its retention. The Army has even said that they will take them if the Air Force doesn't want them. Since the Air Force hates the idea of the Army operating any fixed wing combat aircraft, it has hung on to the A10.
Eric Mc said:
It's still a very useful tool for close air support. The USAF have wanted to get rid of it for ages. However, the Army loves it and always fights for its retention. The Army has even said that they will take them if the Air Force doesn't want them. Since the Air Force hates the idea of the Army operating any fixed wing combat aircraft, it has hung on to the A10.
That's not really true. It's been congress that has kept the A10 alive despite no one really wanting it and as a way of blocking Air Force procurement of more expensive aircraft to replace it.The army won't fly it because they know it has such low survivability in a modern theatre and it conflicts with their current doctrine for fast and deployable forces.
All talk of A10 being cheap to fly is pointless when the biggest cost is in blood for an aircraft that was designed for AAA and not missiles.
It's no less survivable than it was in the 1980s. It's not a night one door-kicker, but it never was then either. Once the triple-digit SAM threat has been degraded by AARGM-lobbing LO platforms then it is still a fantastic asset to have supporting troops in close. To say the A-10 is irrelevant it to say that all CAS platforms/attack helicopters are irrelevant. Don't think of it as a slow F-16, think of it as a fast Apache and it makes much more sense.
hidetheelephants said:
It's a dog in the manger on a modern battlefield; see the SU25 in Ukraine for details. It can be useful in low intensity/COIN operations, but it's a luxury and one that will rapidly be rendered obsolete(if it isn't already) by drones.
Current drones operate medium altitude CAS wheels and are even more vulnerable than A-10s in contested airspace. Also - have we actually seen one do a strafing run yet?Don't underestimate the psychological impact an A-10 gun run has on both friendly and enemy troops.
Was this written before Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
We are currently in a situation where high performance fighter jets popping up briefly tens of miles behind the front lines are being swatted down by long range SAMs.
Against such a system it's just possible that low observable aircraft, super cruising at 30-50,000ft with plenty of decoys and SEAD shooters might be able to penetrate air defences briefly and over time degrade difficult to replace systems like search radars. But it's basically impossible to get every ManPAD and every BUK or similar.
Flying around at 350mph at medium altitude looking for things with a targeting pod is a sure fire way to get shot down, flying close enough to use a gun is pure madness.
Continuous observation by drone, plus loiter munitions, plus drone sighted artillery accomplish the same results for a fraction of the cost and with much greater survivability. Furthermore future developments essentially put Brimstones on a tethered heavy weight drone so any target that pops up can be rapidly dealt with.
The defence against drones is also likely to result in every armoured vehicle near the front line having an AA capable cannon plus many shorts of SHORAD missiles.
We are currently in a situation where high performance fighter jets popping up briefly tens of miles behind the front lines are being swatted down by long range SAMs.
Against such a system it's just possible that low observable aircraft, super cruising at 30-50,000ft with plenty of decoys and SEAD shooters might be able to penetrate air defences briefly and over time degrade difficult to replace systems like search radars. But it's basically impossible to get every ManPAD and every BUK or similar.
Flying around at 350mph at medium altitude looking for things with a targeting pod is a sure fire way to get shot down, flying close enough to use a gun is pure madness.
Continuous observation by drone, plus loiter munitions, plus drone sighted artillery accomplish the same results for a fraction of the cost and with much greater survivability. Furthermore future developments essentially put Brimstones on a tethered heavy weight drone so any target that pops up can be rapidly dealt with.
The defence against drones is also likely to result in every armoured vehicle near the front line having an AA capable cannon plus many shorts of SHORAD missiles.
Talksteer said:
Flying around at 350mph at medium altitude looking for things with a targeting pod is a sure fire way to get shot down, flying close enough to use a gun is pure madness..
Absolutely, and medium altitude is GWOT doctrine. The A-10 should be in the weeds, as originally intended. Minimising exposure, not loitering in full view.hidetheelephants said:
Chaps on the ground like hearing incoming fire on the opposition, this is not exclusive to the A10. It's hugely expensive for what it delivers.
It is expensive because the USAF are making it expensive. I'm sure the UAP which eventually replaces it will be many times more expensive again. Look at it's value during DS when it was operating as intended, vs it's GWOT role, which quite obviously could have been done by a Predator much more cost effectively.
hidetheelephants said:
It brassed up undefended targets, some of which were ours. It performed worse at blowing up Iraqi tanks than the F111, not noted as a platform optimised for blowing up tanks.
LimaDelta said:
It's no less survivable than it was in the 1980s. It's not a night one door-kicker, but it never was then either. Once the triple-digit SAM threat has been degraded by AARGM-lobbing LO platforms then it is still a fantastic asset to have supporting troops in close. To say the A-10 is irrelevant it to say that all CAS platforms/attack helicopters are irrelevant. Don't think of it as a slow F-16, think of it as a fast Apache and it makes much more sense.
It's significantly less survivable than it was in the 1980s. In a world where GBAD against UAS will be everywhere, just about everyone has a gun or a missile ready to take out a low and slow A10 trying to gun run.A UAS with glide munitions can just as easily smack a column of vehicles without the risk of a gun run.
Evanivitch said:
A10 would need an extremely capable defensive aids suite to last 5 minutes in modern combat. It would definitely need CIRCM, possibly even a smaller kW level laser system. Otherwise the role of being a bomb truck in uncontested airspace is a job for B52 and C130.
Literally took the words out of my mouth!!! 
If it was being kept for the next 20 years, other than the Engine upgrade, the highest priority an A-10C would needs is an integrated EW system with MAWS, CIRCM etc for IR MANPAD and a better jammer for Radar systems.
One thing I did see which could be a good role for it, and keeps it "safe" vs peers, it's a fantastic MALD carrier, carrying as many decoys as a B-52 can, so that seems to be a great job if CAS gets ruled out.
Evanivitch said:
LimaDelta said:
It's no less survivable than it was in the 1980s. It's not a night one door-kicker, but it never was then either. Once the triple-digit SAM threat has been degraded by AARGM-lobbing LO platforms then it is still a fantastic asset to have supporting troops in close. To say the A-10 is irrelevant it to say that all CAS platforms/attack helicopters are irrelevant. Don't think of it as a slow F-16, think of it as a fast Apache and it makes much more sense.
It's significantly less survivable than it was in the 1980s. In a world where GBAD against UAS will be everywhere, just about everyone has a gun or a missile ready to take out a low and slow A10 trying to gun run.A UAS with glide munitions can just as easily smack a column of vehicles without the risk of a gun run.
Personally I think anti-drone defences will be more electronic than kinetic, which won't necessarily be a problem for manned platforms. Otherwise saturation attacks with cheap drones will quickly deplete ammunition and overstretch resupply capacity. Unless you are talking about DE weapons, but that is still some way off being fielded in numbers yet.
There has been plenty of noise, but nobody has countered my point - if the A-10 is 'irrelevant and unsurvivable', then why aren't attack helicopters?
LimaDelta said:
I don't know where you were in the 1980s, but everyone along the IGB (and beyond) had a gun or MANPAD back then too.
Perhaps you need to read up on what's changed in 40 years. LimaDelta said:
Personally I think anti-drone defences will be more electronic than kinetic, which won't necessarily be a problem for manned platforms. Otherwise saturation attacks with cheap drones will quickly deplete ammunition and overstretch resupply capacity. Unless you are talking about DE weapons, but that is still some way off being fielded in numbers yet.
There has been plenty of noise, but nobody has countered my point - if the A-10 is 'irrelevant and unsurvivable', then why aren't attack helicopters?
The fact SkyRanger has just sold to Austria and Germany and UK is soon to follow suggests otherwise...There has been plenty of noise, but nobody has countered my point - if the A-10 is 'irrelevant and unsurvivable', then why aren't attack helicopters?
Helicopters can use terrain much more than fixed wings. But yes, there's still a question of manned rotary versus UAS and infantry-controlled guided missiles.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff