Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's aerodynamics and the tradeoffs inherent to aircraft design. Want more thrust? Get a bigger engine. But that means more fuel burn, so less range or endurance. So, add more fuel. That makes the aircraft heavier. So that means a reduced weapons weight unless you make the overall gross weight higher. That in turn stresses the airframe and wings more. So you beef up the airframe, adding more weight... and add other structures such as heavier landing gear. Which reduces the efficiency or effectiveness of the wings, resulting in less maneuverability. Make the wings bigger. More weight, true, but also more wing area. Which means more drag and in many conditions a slower aircraft. This iterative process makes 4th year aeronautical engineering students in college drink heavily while pondering their aircraft design project. Which I and my team did. Ponder and drink, drink and ponder.
It is possible to design an A-10 replacement that does everything the A-10 does now. It's called the A-10. The Fairchild design team got it right the first time, except for the speed thing. If the Hog carried more fuel with bigger engines, it might not have met the stringent requirements for performance from austere fields that the Air Force gave it. Another option would be an upgraded version of the A-9, which lost out to the A-10. There's one on display at March ARB in Riverside, CA. Pretty neat to see it up close, after flying the A-10. The Soviet/Russian SU-25 Frogfoot might as well be called the A-9ski, it's a lot like its US counterpart.
One of the greatest issues faced by designers these days is the need for multi-role aircraft. The A-10 does the close air support, forward air control, and search and rescue missions superbly. However, it can't do it all. In an air threat arena it requires escort. F-15Es, F-16s and F/A-18s, and soon the F-35, can do the A-10 missions, and can also provide their own escort. At the expense, of course, of close air support expertise. Jacks of all trades, masters of none. The days of the specialized aircraft are numbered, because a multi-role aircraft is a force multiplier.
IMHO the A-10 is the only aircraft capable of carrying the flying can opener emblem.
Bigger engines might not give it much more speed but they would allow it to carry more or use shorter hotter fields. Has the Air force forgotten about the disposable JATO rockets?
Have they ever considered adding a couple of .30 cal. Mini guns to the wings in detachable pods? They would give the plane anti personal capacity in addition to fragmentation bombs.
I was just dreaming of a support airplane we River Rats could have used on the big Muddy in 'Nam.
A budget attack plane is not a special purpose tank killer, even if they can put an accurate big gun pod on each wing with room for enough for mucho rounds. Also, as i look at those wings, i don't think they provide enough lift at low speeds to allow the plane to loiter efficiently at slow speeds.
In an air threat arena it requires escort. F-15Es, F-16s and F/A-18s, and soon the F-35, can do the A-10 missions, and can also provide their own escort. At the expense, of course, of close air support expertise. Jacks of all trades, masters of none. The days of the specialized aircraft are numbered, because a multi-role aircraft is a force multiplier.
I thought the F-35 was supposed to be the answer, and because of its multi-role stats, the project has gone way over budget and not lived up to expectations, forcing the A-10 to stick around even longer. Or is that not the case?
As much as I hate the A-10 for very personal reasons. The planes arent that old (35-38) yrs, they just finished the C model upgrade. Honestly, I think they just need fewer of them. There is no reason we should have more than 30 to 50 total. Use the 150 or so extra airframes to support the lowest hour and most reliable examples. And yes, that is very easy to determine, it was my job for 3 years. The scorpion can do the former OA-10C role but the CAS role should still be done by a true 11 station GAU-8 equipped A-10C.
The GAU-8 was the best thing about flying the A-10. No weapon more versatile. However, it's huge. That requires a big airframe to steer that gun around the sky, and that means a large radar cross-section and either some big wings or big engines, or both. Note: The prototype A-9 did not have a GAU-8 on board, it carried the much smaller M61 20mm Vulcan (found on F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22 and A-7 aircraft) which is a popgun by comparison. Though not as demoralizing as the M60C carried on the OV-10.
A common misconception about the A-10 and GAU-8 is its effectiveness against tanks from a distance. In order to kill a tank the aircraft still has to get up close and personal, it's not the magic bullet portrayed on TV and in the movies. This places the aircraft deep in the threat envelope. It's a lot easier to stand off and lob a laser-guided bomb at a tank and annihilate it. APCs, technicals, trucks, minivans and mopeds are all easily serviced by the 30mm, but the 20mm and 25mm (AV-8 Harrier) are almost as effective. The advantage of having 1100 rounds on board is the sheer number of targets a Hog can service. In my opinion, that is its greatest advantage. That's perhaps 15 targets at one second per burst. 4 laser-guided GBU-12s equals 4 targets, assuming they're all hit, a lower payoff. A better option is the APKWS laser-guided rocket. Cost-effective, longer range, and laser accurate, with lower collateral damage. That would make the Scorpion a CAS platform.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,314 posts, read 8,655,159 times
Reputation: 6391
If the AF want to the dump the A-10, but the Army want it for close air support, why can't we just give em to the army?
Does the Army even want them?
Has the Apache effectively replaced them in the CAS role?
What about drones as a replacement?
If the AF want to the dump the A-10, but the Army want it for close air support, why can't we just give em to the army?
Does the Army even want them?
Has the Apache effectively replaced them in the CAS role?
What about drones as a replacement?
Answering in order:
The Army is prohibited from flying fixed wing CAS platforms. National Security Act of 1947. That and the Army would then have to fund them.
But, they do want them. Unless they have to pay for them.
Apaches, despite dripping with awesomeness, are limited, especially in high terrain and hot climates, as are most helos.
Drones. Yuck. Ptui! (And the new term is RPA, remotely piloted aircraft.)
Maybe give the A-10s to the Marines then? Half joking, half serious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
