Let's make new A10 Warthogs

William Pete Hodges

William Pete Hodges

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
852
Location
Virginia
Display Name
Petehdgs
Home Airfield
KCJR
I just read the A-10 Warthog has been extended again. The AIr Force has been looking for a replacement for the A-10 for a long time. They sight aging airframes and other stuff to take them out of service. The problem is it is the best airplane ever designed for that mission and it has proven it again and again both in testing and in combat. So, let's build more of them. Let's build brand new A-10s to replace the aging fleet. We already have the blueprints and a battle tested design. We could upgrade the electronics while we are at it.

It sounds simple to me, but politicians are pretty stupid sometimes.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
I just read the A-10 Warthog has been extended again. The AIr Force has been looking for a replacement for the A-10 for a long time. They sight aging airframes and other stuff to take them out of service. The problem is it is the best airplane ever designed for that mission and it has proven it again and again both in testing and in combat. So, let's build more of them. Let's build brand new A-10s to replace the aging fleet. We already have the blueprints and a battle tested design. We could upgrade the electronics while we are at it.

It sounds simple to me, but politicians are pretty stupid sometimes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but no touch screens
 
William Pete Hodges said:
I just read the A-10 Warthog has been extended again. The AIr Force has been looking for a replacement for the A-10 for a long time. They sight aging airframes and other stuff to take them out of service. The problem is it is the best airplane ever designed for that mission and it has proven it again and again both in testing and in combat. So, let's build more of them. Let's build brand new A-10s to replace the aging fleet. We already have the blueprints and a battle tested design. We could upgrade the electronics while we are at it.

It sounds simple to me, but politicians are pretty stupid sometimes.
Click to expand...

The "newest" one is 41 years old. Restarting a production line that old is expensive. There's a good chance many of the forms and jigs are gone. Plus Fairchild Republic has been long gone.
 
I'll take one if you're buying. Although I guess technically we'd all be buying.
 
Doc Holliday said:
The "newest" one is 41 years old. Restarting a production line that old is expensive. There's a good chance many of the forms and jigs are gone. Plus Fairchild Republic has been long gone.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Boeing redid the wings in a SLEP a few years ago. It can be done, but as you say, not cheap.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
I just read the A-10 Warthog has been extended again. The AIr Force has been looking for a replacement for the A-10 for a long time. They sight aging airframes and other stuff to take them out of service. The problem is it is the best airplane ever designed for that mission and it has proven it again and again both in testing and in combat. So, let's build more of them. Let's build brand new A-10s to replace the aging fleet. We already have the blueprints and a battle tested design. We could upgrade the electronics while we are at it.

It sounds simple to me, but politicians are pretty stupid sometimes.
Click to expand...
Build modern drones instead… lots of them.
 
Bob Noel said:
Not sure how a “modern” drone would ne able to carry the gun
Click to expand...
The question is, would it need to? How many tanks does ISIS have?

The A-10 was designed for one specific threat...massive armor columns pouring across the iron curtain. Sure, it's good otherwise for close air support, but that big ol' honking gun is overkill (literally) for the current-day threats.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
The question is, would it need to? How many tanks does ISIS have?

The A-10 was designed for one specific threat...massive armor columns pouring across the iron curtain. Sure, it's good otherwise for close air support, but that big ol' honking gun is overkill (literally) for the current-day threats.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
It does a nice job on the armed Toyota pickups favored by the ISIS types.

The Rooskies still have “some tanks” they are using in Ukraine so the threat in Europe still exists. Until the DoD gets their drone anti-tank strategy together, the GAU-8 is still useful. I did some work on gun gas ingestion problems on the TF34 powering the A-10 back in the day.

OTOH, the Air Guard establishments in the States has “some” influence in what gets retired or not.
 
We could give a bunch of them to Ukraine - bet they could make good use of them...
 
wanttaja said:
The question is, would it need to? How many tanks does ISIS have?

The A-10 was designed for one specific threat...massive armor columns pouring across the iron curtain. Sure, it's good otherwise for close air support, but that big ol' honking gun is overkill (literally) for the current-day threats.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

overkill is still a good thing. In war, not using overwhelming force (when available) is stupid.
 
After seeing what Ukraine does with drones, I don't see how the cost/benefit favors a CAS plane like the A-10 anymore.
 
wanttaja said:
The question is, would it need to? How many tanks does ISIS have?

The A-10 was designed for one specific threat...massive armor columns pouring across the iron curtain. Sure, it's good otherwise for close air support, but that big ol' honking gun is overkill (literally) for the current-day threats.
Click to expand...

X3 Skier said:
It does a nice job on the armed Toyota pickups favored by the ISIS types.
Click to expand...
20mm cannon shells just bounce off Toyotas? 0.50 Cal rounds just stop, whimper in fear, and drop to the ground?

I had no idea!
Bob Noel said:
overkill is still a good thing. In war, not using overwhelming force (when available) is stupid.
Click to expand...
One is reminded of Schlock Mercenary's maxim #37: "There is no 'overkill'. There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'."

But then, you touched on one of MY favorite military aphorisms, one that Sergeant Schlock leaves out:

"Amateurs study strategy. Professionals study logistics."

How many other aircraft in the US military use the GAU-8?

Well, none. You've got a major logistics tail to provide ammunition for *one* specific model of gun, where the *one* type of target it was designed to engage is rarely encountered. Compared to 20mm or .50 cal, which you can probably find at the 7-11s in countries where we might need to use them.

Oh, yeah, if you run short, there is ONE other user of the GAU-8. But how often is a Dutch Navy ship going to be nearby, and how are you going to fetch the rounds from its point-defense guns to your A-10?

Ron Wanttaja
 
Parts commonality has a place, but can be misapplied (consider the f-111)
 
Part of the problem is that the AF really doesn't want the A-10, or even the ground attack mission. Their pilots love them, but Warthog pilot isn't a career fast track into the command ranks. So they want the F-35 which is flown by honest-to-god fighter pilots but far from ideal for the A-10's role.

The Army, OTOH, would love to have A-10s, but they're not allowed to have them under the agreement that gave the close air support mission to the AF.
 
I thought I had read that the A-10 is extremely vulnerable to modern anti-air defenses, and that its “low and slow” approach didn’t make sense at this point. Is that correct?
 
Bob Noel said:
Parts commonality has a place, but can be misapplied (consider the f-111)
Click to expand...
We're not talking parts, but consumables. Stuff that'll be used up fast in a combat situation. If the vast majority of your combat aircraft fleet needed JP-4, and you had ONE type that had to have 100LL, that complicates your logistics issues. Whole separate supply chain.

There's a reason the .45 Colt, the Thompson SMG, and the M3 Grease Gun used the same ammunition.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
AlleyCat67 said:
I thought I had read that the A-10 is extremely vulnerable to modern anti-air defenses, and that its “low and slow” approach didn’t make sense at this point. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 community was making that argument, but it's a tough one to prove. IIRC, the basic survivability of the A-10 was based on REALLY low operational altitudes; turning around the forests and hills of Germany and not giving the Soviets a chance to lock on. With most of our combat in the past ~45 years being in desert environments, I'm not sure that is still possible.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Dana said:
Part of the problem is that the AF really doesn't want the A-10, or even the ground attack mission. Their pilots love them, but Warthog pilot isn't a career fast track into the command ranks. So they want the F-35 which is flown by honest-to-god fighter pilots but far from ideal for the A-10's role.

The Army, OTOH, would love to have A-10s, but they're not allowed to have them under the agreement that gave the close air support mission to the AF.
Click to expand...

Sounds like USMC needs to make a decision..

wanttaja said:
IIRC, the basic survivability of the A-10 was based on REALLY low operational altitudes; turning around the forests and hills of Germany and not giving the Soviets a chance to lock on. With most of our combat in the past ~45 years being in desert environments, I'm not sure that is still possible.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

They had this nasty little "effer" called the 2K22 Tunguska that was design to kill the A-10 and the AH-64... The firing system was pretty spot on with a 2 second intergraded search to handover, that could track as low as 50'.... translation, "lets see some of the pilot scheiße once the threat radar warning started beeping.

Ivan did his homework on this one...



iu
 
Bob Noel said:
carry the bullets, eh? like a C-5?
Click to expand...
No , like ukrainian drones which carry mortar rounds, mines and other projectiles - a $500 fiber-optic drone + an anti-tank mine … and there goes a 20 million Abrams tank.
 
I read it's actually the drone threat that driving the demand for the A 10. You don't need a more expensive stealthy air combat jet (F 35) to shoot down a drone, but the A 10 can loiter for a long time and shoot when needed.
 
wanttaja said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 community was making that argument, but it's a tough one to prove. IIRC, the basic survivability of the A-10 was based on REALLY low operational altitudes; turning around the forests and hills of Germany and not giving the Soviets a chance to lock on. With most of our combat in the past ~45 years being in desert environments, I'm not sure that is still possible.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, while the A-10 was designed in an era of SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 and SA-8 which were all legacy SAMs, it really came into its career after the Soviets began designing and ultimately a few years later fielding the modern systems we have faced since at least the late 1990s. It would have no business flying amongst modern IADS networks, or even 20 year old FSR SAMs. Low, even really low, isn't protection anymore. Yes there is something to be said for direct terrain masking due to physics, but again, string enough of these systems and other forms of detection into a coherent IADS, and the Fulda Gap scenario becomes very unsurvivable for a Hog, even when you think its hiding behind a hillside.
 
Doc Holliday said:
The "newest" one is 41 years old. Restarting a production line that old is expensive. There's a good chance many of the forms and jigs are gone. Plus Fairchild Republic has been long gone.
Click to expand...
That same argument would go for a new replacement aircraft as well, so I'm not sure how valid of an excuse that would be. Bulding a new production line for A-10s would most certainly not be cheap, but it would skip a lot of the more expensive parts of producing a completely new and untested aircraft.
 
Kevin Eggert said:
That same argument would go for a new replacement aircraft as well, so I'm not sure how valid of an excuse that would be. Bulding a new production line for A-10s would most certainly not be cheap, but it would skip a lot of the more expensive parts of producing a completely new and untested aircraft.
Click to expand...

Whoever holds the paperwork on the A10 is not going to give it away for someone else to crank up production. That's another part of the equation. Getting the rights to build, obtaining the data, tooling up for production will not be cheap. Plus, you have to have a buyer. Sounds to me like Uncle Sam doesn't have any interest.
 
Kevin Eggert said:
That same argument would go for a new replacement aircraft as well, so I'm not sure how valid of an excuse that would be. Bulding a new production line for A-10s would most certainly not be cheap, but it would skip a lot of the more expensive parts of producing a completely new and untested aircraft.
Click to expand...
The A-10 was designed before the Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing era. It is, literally, old school. Converting it to modern standards would probably take more effort than a new ground-up design, and the resulting prototypes would still need to go through the full testing process.

Mind, Boeing probably did some of that with the wing upgrade.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Doc Holliday said:
Whoever holds the paperwork on the A10 is not going to give it away for someone else to crank up production. That's another part of the equation. Getting the rights to build, obtaining the data, tooling up for production will not be cheap. Plus, you have to have a buyer. Sounds to me like Uncle Sam doesn't have any interest.
Click to expand...

sometimes the government owns the data.
 
or at least has the rights to the design
 
It's probably a lot easier to maintain an assembly line for 70 years than it is to maintain it for 10, shut it down for 40, and then try to restart it. Especially when the company that originally built it ceased to exist 20 years ago.
 
Jim_R said:
It's probably a lot easier to maintain an assembly line for 70 years than it is to maintain it for 10, shut it down for 40, and then try to restart it. Especially when the company that originally built it ceased to exist 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
And even if the company was still in business, nobody who knows how to build them is still there.

I’m told that Beech suspended production on the Beechjet a couple of times, and the first handful of airplanes built when they restarted caused problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top