Let's make new A10 Warthogs

On the plus side (sarcasm), we're giving the world's 1st or 2nd largest navy (I can't keep track) lots of data to collect. If we ever try to get in the way of whatever they might do to that large island that's almost within walking distance of them, that info might make the inevitable happen faster.

As it is, if that country gets bored with just selling some weapons and collecting data and wants to help escalate a bit, we might find ourselves in a FUFO situation that we'll regret for a long time. It's been a long time since our Navy has had a really serious embarrassment, or a loss along the scale of late 1942 events.

Back to the Sandy thing and A-10's, I'm reminded of a quote I've probably used a couple of times. It was David Crosby when a talk show host asked him what he thought about the Hell's Angels at the Altamont Festival. He said "if you don't want your lunch guests eaten by lions, don't invite lions to lunch." Or in other words, if you don't want to have to use A-10's or Sandy, then stop flying manned aircraft over hostile territory. It's pretty simple math.
 
Albany Tom said:
Or in other words, if you don't want to have to use A-10's or Sandy, then stop flying manned aircraft over hostile territory. It's pretty simple math.
Click to expand...

Of course, there are multiple ways to meet that condition.
 
Ah, sanity, or anyway a bit of it prevails. Wart will be going strong for the next 4 plus years.

I'm guessing that whomever is pushing the replacement is having a hard time matching up the capability of the A-10 by spending 10X the amount we spend on upgrading the Wart. My reply to the seller of the new machine is always; "yabut, the current A-10 can do that, or it can be fitted with a gizmo to do that as well." Sort of why the BUFF is still in business.
 
Barrett50 said:
Ah, sanity, or anyway a bit of it prevails. Wart will be going strong for the next 4 plus years.

I'm guessing that whomever is pushing the replacement is having a hard time matching up the capability of the A-10 by spending 10X the amount we spend on upgrading the Wart. My reply to the seller of the new machine is always; "yabut, the current A-10 can do that, or it can be fitted with a gizmo to do that as well." Sort of why the BUFF is still in business.
Click to expand...
If we want that capacity into the future, isn't/wasn't there a rewing program that could be resurrected? Also, seems like there could be a re-engine program too, since engines have improved and the original engines on the A-10 are pretty long in the tooth. Of course, an engine swap that would take the Ukranians 6 weeks and a few shekels to put into production will take us 5 years and half a billion dollars to get a test mule off the ground. The acquisition process...aargh.
 
kyleb said:
If we want that capacity into the future, isn't/wasn't there a rewing program that could be resurrected? Also, seems like there could be a re-engine program too, since engines have improved and the original engines on the A-10 are pretty long in the tooth. Of course, an engine swap that would take the Ukranians 6 weeks and a few shekels to put into production will take us 5 years and half a billion dollars to get a test mule off the ground. The acquisition process...aargh.
Click to expand...
Been rewinged at least once by Boeing. The TF34’s are basically the same as the CF34 used on many RJ’s. GE has a strong supply chain to support both types unlike the TF33 on the BUFF that is unsupportable. TF34’s are still very comparable in performance to today’s engines and it would make little sense to introduce a whole new engine into the inventory.
 
Cool snippet from a retired A-10 pilot, Colonel Steve Ladd (ret.):
​
Q. What was the A-10 like to fly?​
​
“The A-10 was a wonderful airplane to fly. It is the last of the stick and rudder airplanes. We considered ourselves elite that we were so far behind the technology. It was incredibly responsive. The turn rate was great, as was the visibility [from the cockpit]. The airplane operated beautifully at low altitude, which is exactly what it was designed to do. It was a machine that was a great delight to fly.​
​
“I have to say when I first got in the A-10 we were all a bit apprehensive as it was so big and slow, but the manoeuvrability and its ability to stay low and among the terrain countered that. I think it’s proved itself, both in training in Europe and then subsequently in the Gulf.”​
 
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...
while you're at it. More B52 airframes
 
JOhnH said:
I didn't want to open a new thread to ask this, so I thought I'd add it here.

I saw this pic here: https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/us-iran-war-donald-trump-strikes-july-29
Are we flying A10s in Iran?

View attachment 153852
Click to expand...
Yes.

www.military.com

Air Force Extends A-10 Warthog Through 2030 After Combat Missions in Iran

Air Force Secretary Troy Meink announced that three A-10 squadrons will keep flying through 2030, following the Warthog's heavy combat role in Operation Epic Fury.
www.military.com www.military.com
 
2-Bit Speed said:
I'd really like to see them commit to securing a successor.
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, sometimes "newer" isn't "better".

What would be wrong with simply making more A-10 airframes and outfitting them with new subsystems?

Similarly, why not replace B-52s with....more B-52s?

We know that the F-15 is incredibly effective for certain missions, and they seem to be in a continual state of extensions, revision, and upfitment. Why not build more?

I'm not suggesting that we don't need to develop next-gen airframes as well, but some of the missions are well served with existing designs. Yes, all of the manufacturing data would need to be re-generated or updated for modern techniques and equipment, but that's not a difficult problem to solve.
 
StraightnLevel said:
In all seriousness, sometimes "newer" isn't "better".

What would be wrong with simply making more A-10 airframes and outfitting them with new subsystems?
Click to expand...
I believe the tooling's gone, for one reason. And the aircraft was designed before CAD/CAM; you'd be working off faded 50-year-old hard copy plans. IIRC, there was a wing redesign at one point, and that probably was done via CAD.

But it still leaves the fuselage, which was designed around the GAU-8 gun; doubt if that gun still in production. The ammunition is unique, only the USAF A-10s and the Dutch Navy still use it. All that stuff the Air Force is squirting into the sand is going to be tough to replace.

In any case, the GAU-8 is a bad match for its current mission (drone suppression) as the plane can carry just 15 seconds of ammunition.

Because the plane was designed around the gun, would suspect it would take considerable re-design to fit in two or three 20 mm guns.

At what point do you just throw up your hands and design a more modern replacement that duplicates the survivability features?

The BUFF would probably be worse. Be better off adapting a civilian transport like the 767.

Ron Wanttaja
 
StraightnLevel said:
We know that the F-15 is incredibly effective for certain missions, and they seem to be in a continual state of extensions, revision, and upfitment. Why not build more?
Click to expand...
They are.

F-15EX

Unmatched payload, long‑range, upgradeable fighter powering tactical air forces.
www.boeing.com www.boeing.com

And the Hog may be getting some help...
www.twz.com

F-15Es Replacing A-10s At Whiteman AFB Signals Bigger Realignment Of Eagle Fleet

A surprise plan to transfer Strike Eagles to the Reserves could be a preview of how a much larger F-15EX fleet will be assigned.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
I skimmed the last article. I did not notice any mention of the F-15E's mission in replacing the A-10. I understand if we do not have troops on the ground the A-10's close air support mission is moot. However, eventually we will have troops on the ground somewhere. Can the F-15E take over that role? Can drones alone accomplish that role?
 
Sad day at Davis Monthan AFB last Wednesday. The last flight of the A10 there. I was there Tuesday and saw only four of them on the ramp. DM has a small fraction of the air traffic we used to have. Nothing but H-60s and those PITA C-130s now. Glad I’m retiring (again) soon
 
Timbeck2 said:
Sad day at Davis Monthan AFB last Wednesday. The last flight of the A10 there. I was there Tuesday and saw only four of them on the ramp. DM has a small fraction of the air traffic we used to have. Nothing but H-60s and those PITA C-130s now. Glad I’m retiring (again) soon
Click to expand...
If they are retiring them anyway, it kind of suggests what would be the perfect retirement gift for you!
 
StraightnLevel said:
In all seriousness, sometimes "newer" isn't "better".

What would be wrong with simply making more A-10 airframes and outfitting them with new subsystems?

Similarly, why not replace B-52s with....more B-52s?

We know that the F-15 is incredibly effective for certain missions, and they seem to be in a continual state of extensions, revision, and upfitment. Why not build more?

I'm not suggesting that we don't need to develop next-gen airframes as well, but some of the missions are well served with existing designs. Yes, all of the manufacturing data would need to be re-generated or updated for modern techniques and equipment, but that's not a difficult problem to solve.
Click to expand...
Agree. There's always a "well, we can't do that because....", but we can certainly come close to it if not do it exactly. A basic airplane these days should be a commodity, like a desktop PC, if we're talking about replicating a design from the 50's, 60's or 70's. The F-15 they can, and are, just building from the same airframe.
The B-52? Duplicate the same size fuse, same NACA whatever airfoil on the wing and tail, keep the same balance, and design it from scratch. It doesn't have to pass the same certification standards as a commercial airliner, it just has to fly...and if somebody can't design that, in 2026, where they know with certainty that the first one rolling off the assembly line will fly, then that company shouldn't claim to be in the aircraft design business. It's not commercial, so it doesn't have to be within 1% or whatever of the fuel economy and minimum possible weight...the original certainly was not. It's ok if it's a little heavy, and it's ok if it's not aerodynamically perfect. It just has to be sturdy and fly and be reasonably economical. Bid it out.

Same for the A-10. Put the specs and design of the A-10 out for bid. List some things as non-negotiable - the titanium tub, the gun mount, the backup cable system, and require that it use the same wing and tail shape. Bid it out. As for the drone mission, to me the best anti-drone weapon is another drone, but if we're going to have humans try to shoot them down 1v1 via gun, then make a different gun pod. In 197x they couldn't fit a gun pod to an F-4 that would shoot straight, but it's 2026 now, so I'm pretty sure they can now. Maybe drag out some 20mm ww2 era cannons and put prox fuses on them that'll work with drones, so the shells can self destruct, so it can be used more safely over friendly territory.

As far as using commercial airframes goes, I think the only people that is good for are the legacy commercial airframe builders. Those aircraft were just designed to be rugged enough and redundant enough to fly in civilian airspace. They're not DC-3's or even 707's that were stronger than they needed to be because they couldn't design to the ragged edge of structural safety like they can today.

We spend way too much money on cutting edge stuff where it just isn't needed. I wasn't born yet by a few years when Eisenhower made his farewell speech. For someone that had so much influence on the country in a positive way, and who faced problems that no one in that city today has the courage to even understand it's interesting that he used that time to speak about a center of evil that concerned him that most people weren't even aware of. Perhaps it was more Insidious then, and perhaps he was looking at the longer lens of history, and predicting where that could head for us.

Ok, that was too wordy. Maybe we just do the Bladerunner thing, and give defence contracting companies a 5 year lifespan, then scatter them to the wind.
 
During late 70’s 80’s air shows I used to feel sorry for the A10 pilots. It’s a dog flying air shows compared to say F16 or F14. Looks like a flying Citation 500 wings and just as slow.

Now once they got to shoot things that changed my mind.

I suspect with new generation manpads they would be very vulnerable.
 
Albany Tom said:
Agree. There's always a "well, we can't do that because....", but we can certainly come close to it if not do it exactly. A basic airplane these days should be a commodity, like a desktop PC, if we're talking about replicating a design from the 50's, 60's or 70's. The F-15 they can, and are, just building from the same airframe.
The B-52? Duplicate the same size fuse, same NACA whatever airfoil on the wing and tail, keep the same balance, and design it from scratch. It doesn't have to pass the same certification standards as a commercial airliner, it just has to fly...and if somebody can't design that, in 2026, where they know with certainty that the first one rolling off the assembly line will fly, then that company shouldn't claim to be in the aircraft design business. It's not commercial, so it doesn't have to be within 1% or whatever of the fuel economy and minimum possible weight...the original certainly was not. It's ok if it's a little heavy, and it's ok if it's not aerodynamically perfect. It just has to be sturdy and fly and be reasonably economical. Bid it out.

Same for the A-10. Put the specs and design of the A-10 out for bid. List some things as non-negotiable - the titanium tub, the gun mount, the backup cable system, and require that it use the same wing and tail shape. Bid it out. As for the drone mission, to me the best anti-drone weapon is another drone, but if we're going to have humans try to shoot them down 1v1 via gun, then make a different gun pod. In 197x they couldn't fit a gun pod to an F-4 that would shoot straight, but it's 2026 now, so I'm pretty sure they can now. Maybe drag out some 20mm ww2 era cannons and put prox fuses on them that'll work with drones, so the shells can self destruct, so it can be used more safely over friendly territory.

As far as using commercial airframes goes, I think the only people that is good for are the legacy commercial airframe builders. Those aircraft were just designed to be rugged enough and redundant enough to fly in civilian airspace. They're not DC-3's or even 707's that were stronger than they needed to be because they couldn't design to the ragged edge of structural safety like they can today.

We spend way too much money on cutting edge stuff where it just isn't needed. I wasn't born yet by a few years when Eisenhower made his farewell speech. For someone that had so much influence on the country in a positive way, and who faced problems that no one in that city today has the courage to even understand it's interesting that he used that time to speak about a center of evil that concerned him that most people weren't even aware of. Perhaps it was more Insidious then, and perhaps he was looking at the longer lens of history, and predicting where that could head for us.

Ok, that was too wordy. Maybe we just do the Bladerunner thing, and give defence contracting companies a 5 year lifespan, then scatter them to the wind.
Click to expand...
Sort of like building 1955 Chevy Bel Airs again? Sounds simple but it isn't.
 
So we were smart enough to engineer it once, but today not smart enough to reverse engineer it? Even starting from scratch without any tooling or plans, it would still seem cheaper and easier than a new clean sheet design which would have to be engineered, tested, tweaked, and spend years in development.
 
midwestpa24 said:
So we were smart enough to engineer it once, but today not smart enough to reverse engineer it? Even starting from scratch without any tooling or plans, it would still seem cheaper and easier than a new clean sheet design which would have to be engineered, tested, tweaked, and spend years in development.
Click to expand...

Ever tried it?

Reverse engineering might get you a set of drawings, after considerable effort. Some of them won't be toleranced properly, because measuring an existing part or two won't tell you where the part's dimensions are within the acceptable tolerance band. The drawings you produce will reflect a design using components and materials that were available 50 years ago from companies that may not even be in business anymore, and most certainly the off-the-shelf components from back then aren't on the shelf today, and even the shelf itself probably doesn't even exist.

So you'll have to make changes in the design so that it can be built with today's parts, materials, methods, manufacturing equipment, etc.

And that drawing package you reverse-engineered will be just drawings; it won't include the tolerance, stress, thermal, power, reliability, noise, EMC, aero, weight, and countless other analyses you will need in order to make the required changes in the design. Furthermore, it won't include the procurement specifications for suppliers; you'll have to figure that out, and the suppliers will have to reverse-engineer their stuff, or more likely start from scratch. Many will no-bid, or else bid at an exhorbitant price. Remember, you're asking them to custom manufacture something that may have been a standard component made in large quantities a few decades ago, but now they'll only be making a handful for you.

Then there's the manufacturing line. It's not like there's thousands of feet of empty factory space just waiting to build a plane. There's an enormous capital investment required to stand up an aircraft production line, and it will be amortized over a small handful of aircraft. And it's not like that line can be cranked up overnight; it will take years, and then the line itself has to be qualified.

You'll be asking firms to tie up resources for an airframe that's been teetering on the brink for years, and continued funding will be doubtful. They'll be creating a product that's already obsolete. Will companies even bid the job? Probably not the more credible, and somewhat risk averse, major players.

And understand that the new A10 version will have to go through qualification all over again, since it's being built to new documentation on a new production line.

Ultimately, it's not much different from creating a new clean-sheet design, and in some ways it's likely to be harder and more expensive.
 
Half Fast said:
Ever tried it?

Reverse engineering might get you a set of drawings, after considerable effort. Some of them won't be toleranced properly, because measuring an existing part or two won't tell you where the part's dimensions are within the acceptable tolerance band. The drawings you produce will reflect a design using components and materials that were available 50 years ago from companies that may not even be in business anymore, and most certainly the off-the-shelf components from back then aren't on the shelf today, and even the shelf itself probably doesn't even exist.

So you'll have to make changes in the design so that it can be built with today's parts, materials, methods, manufacturing equipment, etc.

And that drawing package you reverse-engineered will be just drawings; it won't include the tolerance, stress, thermal, power, reliability, noise, EMC, aero, weight, and countless other analyses you will need in order to make the required changes in the design. Furthermore, it won't include the procurement specifications for suppliers; you'll have to figure that out, and the suppliers will have to reverse-engineer their stuff, or more likely start from scratch. Many will no-bid, or else bid at an exhorbitant price. Remember, you're asking them to custom manufacture something that may have been a standard component made in large quantities a few decades ago, but now they'll only be making a handful for you.

Then there's the manufacturing line. It's not like there's thousands of feet of empty factory space just waiting to build a plane. There's an enormous capital investment required to stand up an aircraft production line, and it will be amortized over a small handful of aircraft. And it's not like that line can be cranked up overnight; it will take years, and then the line itself has to be qualified.

You'll be asking firms to tie up resources for an airframe that's been teetering on the brink for years, and continued funding will be doubtful. They'll be creating a product that's already obsolete. Will companies even bid the job? Probably not the more credible, and somewhat risk averse, major players.

And understand that the new A10 version will have to go through qualification all over again, since it's being built to new documentation on a new production line.

Ultimately, it's not much different from creating a new clean-sheet design, and in some ways it's likely to be harder and more expensive.
Click to expand...
There must be some ground between a complete reverse engineering and a new, clean sheet design. Especially in the preliminary design phase. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
China, Japan, Russia, Iran and just about everyone else steals our stuff and reverse engineers it, or at least parts of it to come up with something just as good or better than they could have without the reverse engineering part. Why can't we do it with our own stuff? We don't even have to steal it.
 
JOhnH said:
China, Japan, Russia, Iran and just about everyone else steals our stuff and reverse engineers it, or at least parts of it to come up with something just as good or better than they could have without the reverse engineering part. Why can't we do it with our own stuff? We don't even have to steal it.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't know that it's "just as good or better" when it comes to military hardware. I seriously doubt it is, because I know a little tiny bit about the core technologies that we protect aggressively and how we protect them. Their stuff may look like ours superficially, but true performance is in the details. And they're not stealing obsolete designs that require components that are no longer available.
 
Half Fast said:
Well, you don't know that it's "just as good or better" when it comes to military hardware. I seriously doubt it is, because I know a little tiny bit about the core technologies that we protect aggressively and how we protect them. Their stuff may look like ours superficially, but true performance is in the details. And they're not stealing obsolete designs that require components that are no longer available.
Click to expand...
I debated deleting that sentence before I posted, because it is arguable and speculative.
I probably should have just left the first couple of comments and see what the objection to that would be:
JOhnH said:
There must be some ground between a complete reverse engineering and a new, clean sheet design. Especially in the preliminary design phase. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Click to expand...
 
JOhnH said:
There must be some ground between a complete reverse engineering and a new, clean sheet design.
Click to expand...

There may be, but it's probably not as much ground as you think, especially for an old and obsolete design. As @X3 Skier mentioned, could you reverse engineer and build a '55 Chevy? Probably, but you'd have an awful time procuring a '55 engine, tranny, steering box, diff, brakes, etc. What's it gonna cost to get some custom shop to build you a '55 water pump, or even a window crank? The exercise rapidly becomes insane, and you'd be better off just designing and building a modern automobile with a '55 body.
 
midwestpa24 said:
So we were smart enough to engineer it once, but today not smart enough to reverse engineer it? Even starting from scratch without any tooling or plans, it would still seem cheaper and easier than a new clean sheet design which would have to be engineered, tested, tweaked, and spend years in development.
Click to expand...
Heck, just ask the Russians to do it....they reverse-engineered interned B-29s into the Tupolev TU-4.
1785774568927.png
Russian production run of TU-4s was about 20% of the US's B-29 fleet.

Ron "Da!" Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Heck, just ask the Russians to do it....they reverse-engineered interned B-29s into the Tupolev TU-4.
View attachment 153998
Russian production run of TU-4s was about 20% of the US's B-29 fleet.

Ron "Da!" Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Rumor had it the Soviets even copied the patches and bullet holes the originals had. The real interesting part is the venerable TU-95 Bear is a descendent of the TU-4.
 
Half Fast said:
There may be, but it's probably not as much ground as you think, especially for an old and obsolete design. As @X3 Skier mentioned, could you reverse engineer and build a '55 Chevy? Probably, but you'd have an awful time procuring a '55 engine, tranny, steering box, diff, brakes, etc. What's it gonna cost to get some custom shop to build you a '55 water pump, or even a window crank? The exercise rapidly becomes insane, and you'd be better off just designing and building a modern automobile with a '55 body.
Click to expand...
That's not reverse engineering. That's trying to make an exact replica. I"m talking about creating a functionally similar design.

I'd bet the Ukrainians could do it. It is our bloated procurement/approval/regulatory process that stops us, not the engineering and manufacturing. (Well maybe the manufacturing, unless we have China build them to our specs).
 
JOhnH said:
That's not reverse engineering. That's trying to make an exact replica. I"m talking about creating a functionally similar design.

I'd bet the Ukrainians could do it. It is our bloated procurement/approval/regulatory process that stops us, not the engineering and manufacturing. (Well maybe the manufacturing, unless we have China build them to our specs).
Click to expand...

The program managers at the Pentagon are part of the problem too. Every procurement gets inundated with change orders increasing the price and complexity, while bloating the aircraft. If we let them design and build an A-10 replacement today, it would weigh twice as much, carry half as much, be able to fly backwards, read the warning label on the Apollo lander left on the moon, and probably spend 90% of its life in maintenance.
 
wanttaja said:
Heck, just ask the Russians to do it....they reverse-engineered interned B-29s into the Tupolev TU-4.

Russian production run of TU-4s was about 20% of the US's B-29 fleet.

Ron "Da!" Wanttaja
Click to expand...
JOhnH said:
That's not reverse engineering. That's trying to make an exact replica. I"m talking about creating a functionally similar design.

I'd bet the Ukrainians could do it. It is our bloated procurement/approval/regulatory process that stops us, not the engineering and manufacturing. (Well maybe the manufacturing, unless we have China build them to our specs).
Click to expand...
Russia, Iran, China, etc could care less about cost to produce military hardware. Whatever they steal, copy, do originally, or however come up with, they will make it if they think it will be useful and cost and effect on their economy will be irrelevant until they go bankrupt.
 
Half Fast said:
Ever tried it?

Reverse engineering might get you a set of drawings, after considerable effort. Some of them won't be toleranced properly, because measuring an existing part or two won't tell you where the part's dimensions are within the acceptable tolerance band. The drawings you produce will reflect a design using components and materials that were available 50 years ago from companies that may not even be in business anymore, and most certainly the off-the-shelf components from back then aren't on the shelf today, and even the shelf itself probably doesn't even exist.

So you'll have to make changes in the design so that it can be built with today's parts, materials, methods, manufacturing equipment, etc.

And that drawing package you reverse-engineered will be just drawings; it won't include the tolerance, stress, thermal, power, reliability, noise, EMC, aero, weight, and countless other analyses you will need in order to make the required changes in the design. Furthermore, it won't include the procurement specifications for suppliers; you'll have to figure that out, and the suppliers will have to reverse-engineer their stuff, or more likely start from scratch. Many will no-bid, or else bid at an exhorbitant price. Remember, you're asking them to custom manufacture something that may have been a standard component made in large quantities a few decades ago, but now they'll only be making a handful for you.

Then there's the manufacturing line. It's not like there's thousands of feet of empty factory space just waiting to build a plane. There's an enormous capital investment required to stand up an aircraft production line, and it will be amortized over a small handful of aircraft. And it's not like that line can be cranked up overnight; it will take years, and then the line itself has to be qualified.

You'll be asking firms to tie up resources for an airframe that's been teetering on the brink for years, and continued funding will be doubtful. They'll be creating a product that's already obsolete. Will companies even bid the job? Probably not the more credible, and somewhat risk averse, major players.

And understand that the new A10 version will have to go through qualification all over again, since it's being built to new documentation on a new production line.

Ultimately, it's not much different from creating a new clean-sheet design, and in some ways it's likely to be harder and more expensive.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the spare parts and maintenance tail on the semi-new but not the same parts.
 
Restarting the F-22 line has been kicked around ever since the Production Line was prematurely stopped by Congress. Every time it has come up, the cost is astronomical and it is decades younger than the A-10. As Ed Haywood said earlier, it would better to pull whatever hulks are in the Boneyard and use them as a skeleton if the need is there.
 
Now I know the F-18 E/F/G Super Hornet is more than just a development of the original Hornet, in deed it is an all new aircraft, but it built upon the lessons learned from the original design and improved upon it in many ways. Or even the latest F-15EX, which is a further development of the F-15E, which in turn grew out of the F-15C earlier models.

I'm just curious for those that state it can't be done. If it could be built once, it could be built again.
 
midwestpa24 said:
If it could be built once, it could be built again
Click to expand...

Certainly it can be done. Is it an efficient approach to achieving the desired capability? Does it make economic sense? Is it sustainable? Is there a good business case for an airframe manufacturer to do it? Is it a good long-term solution?

No.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Now I know the F-18 E/F/G Super Hornet is more than just a development of the original Hornet, in deed it is an all new aircraft, but it built upon the lessons learned from the original design and improved upon it in many ways. Or even the latest F-15EX, which is a further development of the F-15E, which in turn grew out of the F-15C earlier models.

I'm just curious for those that state it can't be done. If it could be built once, it could be built again.
Click to expand...
Of course it *could* be done...but the examples you list, all based on existing designs with existing production tooling and systems support, all had high-order flailexes of one sort or another while "just adding capability" or in some cases just meeting "functional equivalence." It's naive to think that an old design could simply be retooled and flown off an all-new line cheaply and quickly.

Nauga,
and new hotness money for old busted airplanes
 
midwestpa24 said:
The program managers at the Pentagon are part of the problem too. Every procurement gets inundated with change orders increasing the price and complexity, while bloating the aircraft. If we let them design and build an A-10 replacement today, it would weigh twice as much, carry half as much, be able to fly backwards, read the warning label on the Apollo lander left on the moon, and probably spend 90% of its life in maintenance.
Click to expand...

let's not forget the problems created by Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top