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

robert132 wrote:That's one of the fixed wing jobs I was thinking about, nice plane from what I've read.

My point was that your "prediction" was a fait accompli. The Afghan Air Force is already flying a "turbo-prop A-10 replacement." (has been for a couple of years.)

WLBjork wrote:
Red Storm Rising, published 1986.

Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1986-1987, 1987-1988 and 1988-1989 included the F19. Not only that, there were 3 flight simulators based on it and at least 2 models. For a book in 1986, it wasn't an unreasonable inclusion.

He's quoted as later saying he only included it as a red herring against the USSR. As in yes, he was trying to play big bad spyboy and propagandist as an author.

Maybe not unreasonable no, but those inclusions were of the VERY questionable kind, he DID know they were fake, and basically he just did a combination of fanwank and propaganda.

Which makes you wonder how the heck the Harpoon videogame could end up as "realistic"(as limited by computers of the time) as it was since he was involved in that as well.

WLBjork wrote:I have to say that the A10 isn't, IMO, perfect. It's great for hunting tanks, it's great for surviving in high-threat environments due to its redundancy and design.

The problem is that dang 30mm cannon throws big rounds, and even the training rounds have a lot of energy which will make the shockwave disorientating (possibly disabling) when fired close to friendly troops - not to mention that 5MOA accuracy level. In other words, it's not a precision weapon for short range support.

...

Oh, and I'd support the replacement for the A10 being a 2-seated. I've seen one incident where 2 A10s failed to properly communicate with the ground controller, resulting in them strafing a Scorpion or Scimitar light tank and causing casualties.

Actually, the gun is mainly good against obsolete tanks, but ground attack main thing has always been to create a mess on the ground, and it IS very good at that, and it can use missiles against tanks anyway.

Still, i think it could be very good upgrade to switch the gun to maybe a KCA or something, something that can use the same ammo but doesn't weigh so much extra to get that ridiculous rate of fire which is mostly wasted nowadays, and instead use the weight saved to upgrade to a 2 crew cockpit and probably shove an extra sensor/ECM pack into it.

As upgrades go, that would be relatively "cheap", but make the plane a prime ground support aircraft for another 20-30 years, quite possibly more.

And yeah, that is definitely thanks to its primary trait, survival chance, which it really is good at.

So, whilst the A10 shouldn't be retired without a direct replacement, I think it should be supplemented by a new (turboprop - which no doubt will upset the USAF) aircraft, built with similar levels of survivability and designed for the COIN role, with a principle armament of 7.62mm and/or 12.7mm machine guns.

Turboprop to the same survivability is actually going to be a problem to achieve.
You cannot armour a propeller, nor can you put it behind armour.
Among other things, also the potential advantage of a turboprop is lower speed, and that suggests a smaller and lighter plane first of all.

And USA already accepted the Super Tucano as the A-29, so it has that option at least.
The Pucara is available from Argentina, the Cessna 0-2 civillian version is still in plenty use, could easily get some upgrades, while upgraded versions of the Mohawk and Dragonfly could probably still be decent for the role if anyone deigns to pay for it.

Or slap a few hundred kg of armour on the Textron Scorpion and call it a day, cheap as hell, ok characteristics, decent performance, definitely ok for a light strikeplane.

Sure, none of those are perfect or anything, but then you have to get into "brand new design" territory, and considering the spectacle that the F-35 program is, well none of the big US makers seems capable of making something good at any sort of remotely ok price nowadays.

Annachie wrote:Clancy wasn't so much SciFi as he brought tech that was expected soon forward, and in perfect working order.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Oh if only it had been that much.

No, he included lots of stuff that was purely RUMORED, or even just wishful thinking with zero connection to reality.

For the GOOD GUYS. The bad guys, 99% of the time they had to make do with either current stuff, or old stuff.

And he actually got worse post cold war, he includes some things that doesn't even work in a laboratory environment today, years after he wrote it.

Weird Harold wrote:
My point was that your "prediction" was a fait accompli. The Afghan Air Force is already flying a "turbo-prop A-10 replacement." (has been for a couple of years.)

Not a replacement, definitely not. The Super Tucano is a very nice plane, but it's a single engine, turboprop with a tiny fraction of the protection levels and the carrying capacity of the A-10.

Very useful certainly, but absolutely not a replacement for the A-10.

Tenshinai wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:
My point was that your "prediction" was a fait accompli. The Afghan Air Force is already flying a "turbo-prop A-10 replacement." (has been for a couple of years.)

Not a replacement, definitely not.

Hence the quotation marks.