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.
I noticed that people are speculating about more roles for the T7 Red Hawk trainer, such as aggressor aircraft and a derivative light attack plane.
Folks (usually the manufacturer and companies making parts (and the Congress critters whose districts they are located in) are always looking for expanded roles for their products. Sometimes they are legitimate, sometimes they are a lot of hot air.
Those roles seem reasonable for a well designed advanced trainer, especially if you look at the growth pattern of that class of aircraft in the past.
Last edited by MidValleyDad; 01-04-2021 at 07:39 PM..
The A-10 is becoming like the B-52. An obsolete weapon that's long past its retirement.
It makes me wonder how vulnerable both of them are now. The B-52's wings are so old now metal fatigue must have set in. Along with the rest of the entire airframe becoming weaker.
If both are vulnerable, then how much reliance do we still have with them for the successful missions both are to serve? Are they still going out as first-line weaponry? Or are they being held in reserve, for replacing the newer, better aircraft that are lost?
If there's no chance of survival and successful completion of the mission, what's the point in keeping them in the arsenal?
I have no answers, but there's no good military purpose to be served when we rely on antiques to go up against modern opposition.
That's the kind of thinking that sent horse cavalry with lances against tanks.
The A-10 is becoming like the B-52. An obsolete weapon that's long past its retirement.
It makes me wonder how vulnerable both of them are now. The B-52's wings are so old now metal fatigue must have set in. Along with the rest of the entire airframe becoming weaker.
If both are vulnerable, then how much reliance do we still have with them for the successful missions both are to serve? Are they still going out as first-line weaponry? Or are they being held in reserve, for replacing the newer, better aircraft that are lost?
If there's no chance of survival and successful completion of the mission, what's the point in keeping them in the arsenal?
I have no answers, but there's no good military purpose to be served when we rely on antiques to go up against modern opposition.
That's the kind of thinking that sent horse cavalry with lances against tanks.
Not even close to correct. The B-52 aircraft were just upgraded - the current estimate is that will be able to fly for another 20-30 years based on the airframe. Far from obsolete, it is more than capable.
The A10 is being given new wings to extend life another 10 years or so. It is a unique aircraft and although it is supposed to be replaced with the F35 eventually, the F35 doesn't have the same capabilities. The A10 is more capable/survivable than the F35 in the ground support role niche.
Noticed suggestions in older articles that Sweden might buy (what is now designated as) the T7A. The Swedes have had the same problem as the U.S. Air Force-old trainers.
I have nothing against the Wart Hog, nor the B-52.
I can see where the B-52 could still serve the mission, as it could carry modern stand-off missiles and launch them from mid-air rather than the bombs they were built for.
But I think the drone has largely replaced the A-10's mission. ddeemo mentioned survivability; sure, the A-10 with all its armor was survivable in an age when line of sight fire was used to defend against it, but technology has advanced and become a lot cheaper in the years that followed.
The F-35 may be more vulnerable to line of sight ground fire, but it won't be as exposed to it as the A-10 because it's main threat is radar-controlled ground fire.
When it comes to the ground support mission, the aircraft's survivability is secondary to the ground troop's survival anyway. If the F-35 does it as good as the A-10 did, there may not be much of a mission left for the A-10 as time passes.
The major problem with the A-10 is speed (or lack thereof) It was designed to interdict armor in Europe where it would be operating out of forward bases close to the battle area. It was also not designed to deliver munitions to support 'troops in contact'. That was a secondary mission. It was designed to decimate Warsaw Pact armor wherever it could be found, especially when it was moving forward behind the lines. Next in priority were supply assets, especially POL. It was expected to do this in the face of intense ground fire.
The way it has been, and continues to be, used is from large centralised bases far from the battle area. This requires long transit distances. Given the slow speed of the A-10 this means either long reaction times or in-efficient standing patrols (and still long transit times when the patrol is over). F-16, F-35, and other tactical fighters can react much quicker to unplanned missions With modern laser and GPS guided weapons there is not the need to get 'down in the mud' for close support. These stand off weapons were not available when the A-10 system was conceived.
Troops in contact do not care what kind of aircraft shows up to support them as long as it gets there when they need it. Waiting for 'the perfect' plane to lumber in at half the speed of a less than perfect plane is not what they want.
As for the F-35, couldn't a cheaper aircraft carry the same munitions?
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.
