Let's make new A10 Warthogs

Ed Haywood said:
The rumblings I've heard indicate the US expects a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2027. It could be they hope to succeed without a fight, but you don't start down that path unless you are prepared to go all the way.
Click to expand...

if you assume perfectly logical adversaries.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
Adding to that theme the A10 should be modified to allow carrier landings and takeoffs.
[...]
A tail hook could be easily mounted to the air frame in such a way to arrest a landing...
Click to expand...
never mind.gif
William Pete Hodges said:
...But instead of using the landing gear as the connection point for the catapult use an open tow hook hard mounted to the frame well in front of the center of gravity...
Click to expand...

phantom bridle.jpg

Nauga,
in the midst of a Goshawk flashback
 
Craig said:
They get to play with some weird stuff down there at times, as did I during my flight test days..
Click to expand...

Yeah, we did. But I probably shouldn't go into that on a web forum....

By far my favorite program through all the years was the Sniper targeting pod. I was among the first handful of people on the program, when it was all conceptual and blank-sheet, and it was really cool getting to carry a design all the way up from nothing.

Craig said:
I used to have a little problem with some people from MFC sending me stuff that shouldn't come to me...
Click to expand...

My name was very very similar to an X-PAT that was in the address book (like one letter difference) and his name immediately preceded mine. I warned people over and over to be very careful in sending me info that fell under ITAR and make double-damn sure they picked the right guy. Even so, there were occasional mistakes, and once someone screwed it up the first time, autocomplete would help 'em do it again.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
Adding to that theme the A10 should be modified to allow carrier landings and takeoffs. A tail hook could be easily mounted to the air frame in such a way to arrest a landing.
Click to expand...
Of at least the Empennage, Engines and Aft Fuselage while the Forward Fuselage and Wings grind to a halt after the Gear punch thru the Wings and Nose whilst the GAU-8 sails overboard. :biggrin:
 
When I was working for Rocketdyne, every engineering meeting ended with a Q and A between us, junior engineers and the seasoned old timers. Once the conversation went to the F-1 engine (the one that took us to the moon) and all the senior engineers agreed that despite having all the tooling and drawings for it, if NASA ordered another, they would absolutely not be able to build one. There was so much tribal knowledge and figuring things out as they went, that it was impossible to capture. As an example: we had certain jig borer machines that were irreplaceable and not a single operator for them.
 
wanttaja said:
I suspect the war in Ukraine has opened a lot of eyes in the Army. We can argue about how inept the Russians sometimes appear to be, but it really sounds like manned rotary-wing assets have been driven from the battlefield. The crude anti-drone shields erected over Russian tanks should have got the Armor folks to start thinking, too.
...
Click to expand...
I HAD to look that up. Ingenious.
www.rferl.org

Hedgehogs In The Fog: The Unearthly New Armor Spotted In Ukraine

Photos emerging from the battlefields of Ukraine show a strange, spiky new "hedgehog" armor being used on tanks and armored vehicles to protect the hardware from drone strikes.
www.rferl.org www.rferl.org
 
Ed Haywood said:
I'm talking about a peer fight also. Ground warfare is changing in unpredictable ways. The way we trained for the heavy fight for the last 75 years is obsolete. There are no magic ray beams to make drones go away.

The media focuses on small FPV attack drones, but the impact on ISR is more important. Both sides now have 24/7 omnipotent observation of the FLOT to a depth of 50km. Anything that moves is seen immediately, and anything seen gets hit with precision munitions within minutes. Operational level maneuver gets shut down before it starts.

The other big issue is long range missiles. China now has thousands of missiles capable of hitting any air base in the Pacific. Dispersion will be necessary for survivability.

IMO it makes sense to keep a platform designed for ground attack, as a hedge against the future. It also makes sense to keep an aircraft capable of operating from austere environments and less than pristine runways.

Annual sustainment cost for 3 squadrons of A10's is 350 million, including modernization. That would buy three F35's.

I love and admire the Air Force. But history proves their leadership occasionally has to be forced to commit resources to support the ground fight.

"You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, and wipe it clean of life - but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman Legions did - by putting your soldiers in the mud." -- TR Fehrenbach​
Click to expand...

I agree with your take on the world, but I'm not sure how an A-10 factors into all of it. They'd be blown away with long range surface-surface fires the second they bedded down in some austere landing strip, or just droned to death. I don't necessarily think the A-10 doesn't have a future role, but I think the last 25 years have been an artificial argument for an airplane that is mostly less relevant than it once was. Just like those 25 years convinced congress that a minimum buy of F-22's was advisable, because "why would we ever need them?"
 
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 A10 has virtually zero survivability on a modern battle with contested airspace. Even when used with absolute air superiority and strong SEAD it had a high loss rate. It’s great for fighting third world countries where you have absolute control over the airspace. It’s not useful in a modern battle against well equipped opponents.
 
nothing is guaranteed to be survivable in all scenarios.

well-equipped opponents would be a problem for every single weapon system/platform.

(btw - don't get me wrong, I love the idea of increasing the survivability of our troops)
 
The problem is designing a military to fight one type of war. Our military is largely geared towards another World War, one nation's military versus another nation's military, Russia, China, etc. However those are not the wars we have largely fought in decades. We have faced more guerilla style opponents using rudimentary weapons, not the latest and greatest technology or brute force. An aircraft like the F-22 or F-35 might be intimidating to a major nation, but its abilities don't mean squat to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or the current flavor of antagonists.

Not saying we can ignore the threats from the major players around the world, but the military needs the tools for all the fights we seem to get involved in.
 
A lot of the structure of today's major Weapon Systems, especially Aircraft, has been driven by the absolute nonsense of the bean counters believing one airplane can do every job AND that will save money. Never does and never does. The Commonality argument is fallacious on it's face.

The only truly successful "common" warfighting airplane in my 50 years in the development experience was the F-4 Rhino.
 
WDD said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think even Chuck Yeager could see a drone at treetop level from a moving aircraft. On top of that a drone has a significantly wider performance envelope it can transistion from forward to reverse flight in a second or two leaving an attacking aircraft with no solution.

I was in West Germany when the A-10 was first deployed to REFORGER and it was amazing to see them in the sky. As noted previously... the A-10 was a counter to a massive Soviet armor push through places like the Fulda gap. The last 3-5 conflicts were all in open desert/mountains/urban areas with little tank support. The A-10 was relegated to turning buildings in rubble. Something Arty can do way cheaper with a little less accuracy.
 
Jeff767 said:
The A10 has virtually zero survivability on a modern battle with contested airspace. Even when used with absolute air superiority and strong SEAD it had a high loss rate. It’s great for fighting third world countries where you have absolute control over the airspace. It’s not useful in a modern battle against well equipped opponents.
Click to expand...

The SU-25 has survived in that exact environment and is still considered useful.


TLDR: Ukraine started with 40, lost 18, gained 18 from donors, and still has 40.

45% loss rate sounds high, but that is during four years of continuous combat, in the fight of their lives, against a much more powerful and capable opponent.
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
The only truly successful "common" warfighting airplane in my 50 years in the development experience was the F-4 Rhino.
Click to expand...
The Phantom is definitely a joint success story, but the A-7 also performed well for a shorter time for the Navy, AF, and Guard. And while inclusion depends on how you define "warfighting," the C-130 has seen use by more services, domestic and foreign, than the F-4.

Nauga,
supporter of light, medium, and heavy attack
 
nauga said:
… And while inclusion depends on how you define "warfighting," the C-130 has seen use by more services, domestic and foreign, than the F-4.

Nauga,
supporter of light, medium, and heavy attack
Click to expand...
I think hanging a 105 off the side answers any questions on the warfighting side. If it doesn’t, then putting Hellfires and Griffins on the hardpoints does.
 
TCABM said:
I think hanging a 105 off the side answers any questions on the warfighting side. If it doesn’t, then putting Hellfires and Griffins on the hardpoints does.
Click to expand...

Sidebar story. I'm on a night raid in Baghdad in 2007. Very urban terrain, 4 story buildings. We hear explosions in the next block over. That was an AC-130 pounding something we couldn't see with the 105. Then we take some fire from a building up the street. One of our vehicles returns fire with 50 cal. The AC-130 obliterates the roof with 40mm cannon. No more gunfire.

Needless to say, I'm a big fan of aircraft designed for ground support. AC-130, A-10, even the armed cropduster.
 
The Phantom was the wrong answer to a question nobody knew how to ask. Initially an all missile platform that simply littered the countryside with hilariously bad AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles. After a lot of money (and lost planes/crews) they fixed it with a gun and slightly better missiles that still didn't break a 15% hit rate.

There were WAY better options available. The F-5E (although early models were not), the F-8, for fighters, the A-4 and A-6 Corsair for ground attack.

Heck the F-8 was a MONSTER compared to the F-4.
 
Reading Robin Old's biography does not generate the impression that the F-4 was a bad plane or platform. Instead it seems that with appropriate training (and ROE), the F-4 might have been regarded much more favorably by historians.
 
Last edited:
pfarber said:
Heck the F-8 was a MONSTER compared to the F-4.
Click to expand...
OK Mav, show us some of that pilot ****. Talk numbers. Rate/radius. Excess power. Kill ratios, Vietnam and total. Loss rates.

pfarber said:
There were WAY better options available. The F-5E (although early models were not), the F-8, for fighters, the A-4 and A-6 Corsair for ground attack.
Click to expand...
Tell us more about this A-6 Corsair you speak of?

Nauga,
with an Intruder alert
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
How do you feel about Apaches?
Click to expand...

I like 'em too, with the caveat that they don't pack the oomph of a 250 or 500 pound bomb. If you need to dig people out of structures and fortifications, there's no substitute for physics. But for killing tanks, there is nothing better than an AH.
 
Last edited:
nauga said:
The longer I look the better that gets. o_O
Made by Chances Naught, no doubt.

Nauga,
and an unholy union
Click to expand...

Haha there would be 3 other dudes from the looks of it, just functioning as the peanut gallery making fun of the pilot for their s***tty bombing and strafing. Sign me up!
 
Ed Haywood said:
I like 'em too, with the caveat that they don't pack the oomph of a 250 or 500 pound bomb. If you need to dig people out of structures and fortifications, there's no substitute for physics. But for killing tanks, there is nothing better.
Click to expand...

They did pretty well at popping off HELLFIREs into insurgent hideouts in the Middle East. With the Arrowhead targeting system (which I had a small hand in), they could put a missile through any window, doorway, or ventilation shaft you liked. Or without an opening, the missile’s shaped charge warhead with a precursor does a helluva job of punching through concrete structures.

JAGMs do even better. (I received Lockheed’s Nova award for that one.)
 
Half Fast said:
They did pretty well at popping off HELLFIREs into insurgent hideouts in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Agreed, excellent weapons, thanks for your part in making them!

But insurgents don't dig. Conventional infantry burrow down, and you gotta move earth. @TCABM can probably give us a class on weapon and platform selection. I just know bigger boom is gooder.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Agreed, excellent weapons, thanks for your part in making them!

But insurgents don't dig. Conventional infantry burrow down, and you gotta move earth. TCABM can probably give us a class on weapon and platform selection. I just know bigger boom is more gooder.
Click to expand...

True. And you’re quite right, that requires heavy bombs.

But it seems to me that when an enemy goes underground, you don’t have to reach ‘em to kill ‘em. You just have to close up their exits and bury them. :devil:
 
TCABM can probably give us a class on weapon and platform selection.
Click to expand...

I bet he can. My knowledge is pretty much limited to platforms and missiles I had a hand in, and a little about competitors.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Agreed, excellent weapons, thanks for your part in making them!

But insurgents don't dig. Conventional infantry burrow down, and you gotta move earth. @TCABM can probably give us a class on weapon and platform selection. I just know bigger boom is gooder.
Click to expand...

Half Fast said:
I bet he can. My knowledge is pretty much limited to platforms and missiles I had a hand in, and a little about competitors.
Click to expand...

At one time, probably; not no more, though. Most JTACs won’t get into weaponeering, they just want desired effects from what’s available. There are times when it’s helpful to know impact angle, fusing delay, and more, but that’s rare outside the wire.

Now, if you have dedicated support and time to plan, that’s a different story, although also a rare one for the conventional dudes.

I usually had one of two desired effects: 1) make them stop or 2) kill them all.
 
I think an argument could be made where yes, the A-10 isn’t going to be very survivable on a highly contested, modern battlefield. But, you could make the same argument about the AH-64 or the AC-130 and many other aircraft. Perhaps it’s wise to keep more vulnerable aircraft around that are less costly than 5th Gen aircraft for low intensity / guerrilla warfare theaters…if the budget allows.

Also, these platforms are constantly being upgraded. To say that these legacy aircraft are no longer relevant is really based on past or even current capabilities. C-130s are already fielding anti-drone countermeasures and future versions of UH-60s will have the capability as well. Those aircraft will still be vulnerable in future conflicts but well simply have to accept losses. Just like in Ukraine, troops and supplies will always be needed to be moved by air in any conflict. Whether or not there will be pilots up front is the real question. I’m not so sure we’re ready to go full UAS within the next 20 or so years.

Fact is, they’ve been saying the A-10 was obsolete since the late 80s. It’s been proving naysayers wrong ever since.
 
Velocity173 said:
…. Perhaps it’s wise to keep more vulnerable aircraft around that are less costly than 5th Gen aircraft ….
Click to expand...
I think what gets (somewhat) lost in the sauce is that ground troops usually don’t get committed until localized air superiority is achieved (at a minimum). That means the big ADA threats have been turned into flaming bits of hair, teeth, and eyeballs, too.

Since you don’t do CAS/CCA without troops on the ground, the more fragile platforms wait it out. Sure, MANPADS and AAA is still a threat, but if it’s that big of a threat, the legs will just have to wait it out until enough has been attritted.

Fifth+ gen, TLAMs, HIMARS kicks the door down, fourth gen quantity mops things up, then the fragile stuff gets to play.

Except the B-52. It stands off on day 1 with JSOW/JASSM then loiters for the TIC.
 
TCABM said:
I think what gets (somewhat) lost in the sauce is that ground troops usually don’t get committed until localized air superiority is achieved (at a minimum).
Click to expand...

In an offensive environment, that's true. If defending against a near peer, we may not have that luxury.

My big worry is China makes a move on Taiwan, we commit the bulk of our air and naval power to the Pacific, then Russia grabs a slice of the Baltics.

30 years ago when I made coffee for generals in the Pentagon, the big strategic debate was whether we could fight two wars simultaneously on opposite sides of the globe. At the time, the worry was Kim Jong Il and Saddam invading S Korea and Kuwait at the same time. Russia and China coordinating their actions is far more dangerous.

For all the foreign policy antics of the current admin, I agree with their position that Europe needs to be able to fight without us. Failure to address that weakness just invites Russia and China to exploit it.
 
TCABM said:
I think what gets (somewhat) lost in the sauce is that ground troops usually don’t get committed until localized air superiority is achieved (at a minimum). That means the big ADA threats have been turned into flaming bits of hair, teeth, and eyeballs, too.

Since you don’t do CAS/CCA without troops on the ground, the more fragile platforms wait it out. Sure, MANPADS and AAA is still a threat, but if it’s that big of a threat, the legs will just have to wait it out until enough has been attritted.

Fifth+ gen, TLAMs, HIMARS kicks the door down, fourth gen quantity mops things up, then the fragile stuff gets to play.

Except the B-52. It stands off on day 1 with JSOW/JASSM then loiters for the TIC.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is the point I brought up in the other thread we had about the subject. After “shock and awe” comes SEAD. By the time ground troops start advancing into home turf, we’ve controlled the air.

Like I said in 2004 when I got “fixed wing, Fixed wing…lock!” on my RWR. For a split second I reacted, then I thought, there’s no air threat here. It would have been suicide to be flying rotor wing in the area I was at during the opening days of OIF in 2003. A year later was night and day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top