My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

I flew the A-6 Intruder for a couple of tours... I would have given a lot to have been able to fly either the A-10 or the F-15E Strike Eagle... The A-10 for the CAS mission, or the F-15E for the long-rage strike mission.

While the A-10 may have been optimized for the Fulda Gap anti-tank role, it was probably the best close air support aircraft out there with the perfect combination of survivability, weapons load and variety, and endurance.

The high, protected twin turbofans provided superior endurance with significant engine protection. The integral 30 MM gatling cannon, combined with an external mixed weapons payload provided weapons flexibility second to none.

Relatively slow speed enabled A-10 pilots to visually identify targets on the ground, resulting in fewer "off target" hits.

I've flown a lot of CAS in my time... One of the most difficult missions to succeed at - if you're going to do it right. The guy on the ground is depending on you for his life and I was willing to do anything and everything to put bombs on target, on time so he could go home to his family when it was all over and done with.

My thoughts on the A-10? Perhaps some hardware and software changes to make it even more lethal, there's certainly space in the airframe. But in general? BUILD MORE of them! It is a well-proven airframe design that accomplishes its mission without peer. Retire the worn out airframes ONLY as the new ones are deployed. 283 currently in the inventory? I don't know if the number is high, low, or spot on. I'd reduce the number of F-35s by perhaps 30 or 40, and I'd replace them with perhaps 250-300 brand new A-10s.

It has been said more than once that quantity often takes on a quality of its own... Newer, prettier, fancier, and more expensive is not always the best choice!

While the A-10 may have been optimized for the Fulda Gap anti-tank role, it was probably the best close air support aircraft out there with the perfect combination of survivability, weapons load and variety, and endurance.

Very hard to find something truly better, even if you include theoretical projects and stuff.

Sure you can find planes that can do SOME individual tasks better in some cases, but usually at a severe negative somewhere else.

I'd reduce the number of F-35s by perhaps 30 or 40, and I'd replace them with perhaps 250-300 brand new A-10s.

I would call that an excellent trade.

It has been said more than once that quantity often takes on a quality of its own... Newer, prettier, fancier, and more expensive is not always the best choice!

Especially when the older and cheaper is also better...

WeberFan wrote:I flew the A-6 Intruder for a couple of tours...

Thank you for your service, and a late welcome to the forum(s).

===CLIP===

My thoughts on the A-10? Perhaps some hardware and software changes to make it even more lethal, there's certainly space in the airframe. But in general? BUILD MORE of them! It is a well-proven airframe design that accomplishes its mission without peer. Retire the worn out airframes ONLY as the new ones are deployed. 283 currently in the inventory? I don't know if the number is high, low, or spot on. I'd reduce the number of F-35s by perhaps 30 or 40, and I'd replace them with perhaps 250-300 brand new A-10s.

It has been said more than once that quantity often takes on a quality of its own... Newer, prettier, fancier, and more expensive is not always the best choice!

(At the risk of sounding like a Rush Limbaugh fan...)

Ditto! ditto! ditto!

I'd add one caveat however: Build maybe half of them as an improved "B" model. i.e.: Make some _TWO_ seater versions to improve the task of Observation and/or Translator role.



.

Here's an idea, for when a Predator drone just isn't enough: a remote-controlled A-10!

I don't mean it should be controlled with just a flat-screen monitor and a joystick; it must be linked to a full-function flight simulator that gives the pilot as much situational awareness as possible. In some ways it can be better than being physically in the plane - cameras can be positioned to give the pilot visibility in areas normally blocked by parts of the aircraft.

You don't risk pilots, just a (relatively) cheap aircraft. It can be rigged to self-destruct if shot down. Pilots can switch off every hour or two instead of being confined to one seat for 14 hours. Leave off a few missiles and mount a couple of M-134 miniguns under the wings. The possibilities are almost endless.
----------------------
If you give politicians money to pay the government's debts, they will spend it and borrow more.

Imaginos1892 wrote:it must be linked to a full-function flight simulator that gives the pilot as much situational awareness as possible.

Unlikely to work unless you put the control station relatively close to the area of operation, apparently drone control features a lag on the order of seconds and unstable connections.

Two teams of trained soldiers spent hours staring at a parked car, not fighting the war on terror, all thanks to lag. Welcome to the yawning face of modern warfare.

I am less than entirely convinced that remote aircraft are currently suitable for close (read: reliably precise) air support.

No, no, no, this idea is not for close support when our forces are, well, close to the action - this is for deep-penetration strikes into enemy territory, where the plane is at risk of being shot down in the middle of Bumfuckistan and the pilot tortured and murdered. Or those long, boring missions where the plane idles around waiting for a target designation which it may never get. The sort of jobs drones do today, only carrying a much bigger stick.

Response time is a function of bandwidth and latency. Anything over about 80 mSec tends to kill the pilot's "feel", so satellite links are Right Out for combat operations - two bounces through a satellite produce a delay of almost 480 mSec. The long, boring parts can still be done by satellite, but combat pilots will probably have to be on the same continent.
----------------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

The last 17 years of my army career I was SHORAD (Stinger & Avenger). We trained a lot with helicopters and A-10s. I know people get down on the A-10 because its 'old' but the M2 HB .50 is older and still works like a charm.

I've never been a pilot, but from a ground Soldier's (and Duck Hunter) viewpoint the A-10 is amazing. It flies quiet, a lot quieter than it should be. Sometimes they've gotten to within 300 meters before we heard it (approached from behind a woodline). I've seen it stand on a wingtip and turn around damn near within its own length. I've gotten to see it 'punt' (or 'softball') bombs over a ridge while staying beneath the ridge crest, out of the target's view. Picture a giant tossing a bomb under-hand over a hill higher than he is, and you get the idea.

Thanks for your time, I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

We first "heard" the "HOG" in the summer of 1981 at Murtle Beach South Carolina. We were camped (parked) at a big RV place.

The laundry room was right next to the big outdoor pool. Very nice. Got a nice tan while doing all the dirty clothes. Hot and muggy.

Anyhow, these two big ugly strange jets came out of nowhere. As they passed rather low overhead, we then heard the jet engines.

Very whinney like commercial passenger jets. Then as they passed from view, they stood on the throttles. Got very noisy fast.

The first time I saw the A10 was at Edwards Air Force Base CA in about 1976 or so? Distant memory. They were bore sighting the gun.

Top wrote:The last 17 years of my army career I was SHORAD (Stinger & Avenger). We trained a lot with helicopters and A-10s. I know people get down on the A-10 because its 'old' but the M2 HB .50 is older and still works like a charm.

I've never been a pilot, but from a ground Soldier's (and Duck Hunter) viewpoint the A-10 is amazing. It flies quiet, a lot quieter than it should be. Sometimes they've gotten to within 300 meters before we heard it (approached from behind a woodline). I've seen it stand on a wingtip and turn around damn near within its own length. I've gotten to see it 'punt' (or 'softball') bombs over a ridge while staying beneath the ridge crest, out of the target's view. Picture a giant tossing a bomb under-hand over a hill higher than he is, and you get the idea.

Thanks for your time, I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

GE TF-34 turbofan engine. Same as the Navy's S3 Viking. Very, very quiet engine. Made even quieter by its placement between the vertical tails on the A10.

Top wrote:I know people get down on the A-10 because its 'old' but the M2 HB .50 is older and still works like a charm.

not to mention the M1911A1...hmmm...someone want to remind me what the 1911 means? ( )

HB of CJ wrote:We first "heard" the "HOG" in the summer of 1981 at ... these two big ugly strange jets came out of nowhere. As they passed rather low overhead, we then heard the jet engines.

That reminds me of a fist I had, walking to a friend’s house in (well...I'll say North Texas though I doubt it matters now), I was use to Jet noise, the Air National Guard use to use our area for maneuvers (opposite direction from the local international airports), we also got B-52s from SAC over the area. I can tell both and F-16s by sound alone. This day, I heard a very loud jet noise I had never heard before (and would never again) I looked up and saw a very long black jet shoot past and over the horizon so fast I stood there and gauked wondering what I just saw. I found out a few years later when I saw it again on a model box I immediately spend my allowance on! Yes, you know what it was.