The Aircraft Image Posting Contest

[fredgiblet]

What should happen is the Army should be allowed to support it's own Army Aviation Division, which should mainly consist of helicopters, and close air support aircraft, though perhaps some other ground attack aircraft as well.

My personal thought would be a division between strategic and tactical air forces. Strategic airforces would be strategic bombing, recon, airlift and air superiority, tactical air forces would be interdiction, tactical recon, close air support and tactical airlift. The tactical air force would be a part of the Army, the strategic air force would be a separate service.

It does it's job perfectly as is: why upgrade the damn thing?

Because with the advances we've had in the last 40 years we can probably make significant improvements in key areas (loiter time, top speed, adverse weather functionality, possibly even survivability). A better question would be why would we order the exact same plane we ordered 40 years ago? If I was in charge of the A-13 project I can pretty much guarantee that the end result would look and function very similarly to the A-10, but improvements CAN be made.

[Trantor]

Because with the advances we've had in the last 40 years we can probably make significant improvements in key areas (loiter time, top speed, adverse weather functionality, possibly even survivability).

Not necessary. The A-10´s strong suit is it´s manouvering capabilities: The lower the airspeed, the quicker it turns around for the next kill.

And technical improvement always bears the risk of financial failure, dampening the "bang for the buck"-ratio.

I´d go so far and say, better build 3 or 4 of them "old-style" than 1 "improved" model with "improvements" in the single-digit range.

[fredgiblet]

Not NECESSARY, but USEFUL. Getting there before the grunts are all dead is usually appreciated. My suspicion is that the top speed of the A-10 is limited by the strength of it's wings, upgrading the materials the wings are made out of might improve the top speed without any downsides except a very mild increase in cost.

EDIT: Also many of the upgrades I would consider would probably use off-the-shelf or mildly customized things. I wouldn't go all F-35 on a re-design.

[Trantor]

Not NECESSARY, but USEFUL. Getting there before the grunts are all dead is usually appreciated. My suspicion is that the top speed of the A-10 is limited by the strength of it's wings, upgrading the materials the wings are made out of might improve the top speed without any downsides except a very mild increase in cost.

Nope, wrong assumption, sry. Vne is 450 Kn(ts), that´s pretty much all you can get from an airframe with straight wings with a high lift airfoil. There´s no room for improvement. And it is not a matter of material, but of (subsonic) aerodynamics, a field already well understood by the time of it´s developement.

You´ll have to migrate to swept wings which means a total new airframe with subsequent cost for developement and a pretty high risk of financial or even technical failure. Such a big and powerful weapon (~45 Kilonewton of counterthrust!) is not easy to install, and you have to care for balance of all forces (aerodynamic, thrust, thrust-balance in all conditions, weight, flight envelope etc) first in order to make the whole thing work.

[TrashMan]

Plus waaaaay more firepower (a heli can´t be a platform for the GAU-8 because of it´s huge recoil force), less vulnerable and they´re cheap, roughly half the price of an Apache plus way cheaper and quicker maintenance.

Plu, the thing is a tank. Can take a lickin' and keep flying.


OT:
Ok, I'm starting to get a bit creeped out with this talk of weat, urine and vanilla. It's veering into "Talimancer creepy" territory.

[TrashMan]

Although I must admit, looking at the F-18 Super-hornet, I'm curious how they'd upgrade the A-10... Maybe a bigger gun? *drools*

That is ALWAYS the right answer. 40mm gattling cannon anyone?

[discord]

just gonna hop on the bandwagon and agree that the A-10 is awesome, but given 40 years there should be some room for improvement, probably mostly electronics though, the basic design is pretty damn good...

was thinking along the lines of fly by wire, cockpit layout and perhaps turreted miniguns/grenade launchers as payload, with a dedicated gunner on the plane, it might do the work of a light weight spectre, just expanding current capacity without diminishing the classic awesome, perhaps recon pod for high altitude spying....although drones probably do that better...

might get better engines too, should have been SOME improvement these last 40 years there...

[Boris Norris]

Although I must admit, looking at the F-18 Super-hornet, I'm curious how they'd upgrade the A-10... Maybe a bigger gun? *drools*

That is ALWAYS the right answer. 40mm gattling cannon anyone?

How much ammunition could be carried? I dont think anybody tried putting a 40mm Bofors on a B-26 or A-26. Besides, what would be the target?

[junk]

just gonna hop on the bandwagon and agree that the A-10 is awesome, but given 40 years there should be some room for improvement, probably mostly electronics though, the basic design is pretty damn good...

was thinking along the lines of fly by wire, cockpit layout and perhaps turreted miniguns/grenade launchers as payload, with a dedicated gunner on the plane, it might do the work of a light weight spectre, just expanding current capacity without diminishing the classic awesome, perhaps recon pod for high altitude spying....although drones probably do that better...

might get better engines too, should have been SOME improvement these last 40 years there...

To be honest, the main point of the a-10 is that it's an ugly ass flying warthog with a minimum of electronics. You shoot up a half of it and it will still get home somehow.

It's built to be stable, fixed, cheap and disposeable. I guess you can't expect anything else from an aircraft that won the tender more by chance and was cobbled together from spare parts.

[Mr Bojangles]

@Absolom - When you said "strap," I actually imagined a sort of bandolier-like sling, around the fuselage and over the wings. The F-35 "Rambo," when you absolutely, positively have to kill everything in front of you, and look impractically ridiculous while you do it.

It sounds perfect! We'll take 4 at the per-unit cost for 200!

I think we could swing that...

just gonna hop on the bandwagon and agree that the A-10 is awesome, but given 40 years there should be some room for improvement, probably mostly electronics though, the basic design is pretty damn good...

was thinking along the lines of fly by wire, cockpit layout and perhaps turreted miniguns/grenade launchers as payload, with a dedicated gunner on the plane, it might do the work of a light weight spectre, just expanding current capacity without diminishing the classic awesome, perhaps recon pod for high altitude spying....although drones probably do that better...

might get better engines too, should have been SOME improvement these last 40 years there...

To be honest, the main point of the a-10 is that it's an ugly ass flying warthog with a minimum of electronics. You shoot up a half of it and it will still get home somehow.

It's built to be stable, fixed, cheap and disposeable. I guess you can't expect anything else from an aircraft that won the tender more by chance and was cobbled together from spare parts.

Exactly right! Blow off an engine, tear a wing in half, puncture half the fuel tanks, destroy the magazine, lose all the landing gear and burn out what electronics there are and it will still land. The A-10 has one mission, and it is damn near perfectly designed to accomplish it. Hell, it was designed and built around the cannon.

[Turrosh Mak]

I guess you can't expect anything else from an aircraft that won the tender more by chance and was cobbled together from spare parts.

This is absolutely wrong. I heard William M Curtis III talk about the design phase of the A10. They talked to Han-Ulrich Rudel as a design expert. Every member of the design team had a copy of "Stuka Pilot" issued to them. You can't cobble something together and expect it to stay in one piece if it's supposed to carry the GAU 8.

[Trantor]

To be honest, the main point of the a-10 is that it's an ugly ass flying warthog with a minimum of electronics. You shoot up a half of it and it will still get home somehow.

It's built to be stable, fixed, cheap and disposeable.

I second that. The only improvement i could imagine would be something like an advanced helmet for the pilot with a build-in display for tactical and communixation purposes. But just as an add-on, not integrated, because the more complexity you add, the more downtime you get.

And fly-by-wire sounds supa-fancy, but actually is the worst and last thing you want to have on a plane in the hot zone.

IIRC the readiness of the A-10 in the 2nd gulfwar was ~96%, and there were only about 5 man-hours maintenance needed for one flight-hour. Compare that to an Eurofighter (readiness somewhere around as low as 20% actually and today still over 100 man-hours of maintenance) and you get the picture.

KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid.

[Absalom]

I´m also pretty sure there´s no way you can built in a GAU-8 in an F-35 or anything else.

True, but that won't stop the jokes.

the basic concept i agree with, the F-35 being an "affordable" multi-role stealth fighter that is adaptable to different roles (IE A model is for the air force ( light and more for dog fighting and light strikes), B is the more stronger navy version and the C being the marine VTOL/STOL replacement for the harrier).

I thought that the B was the marine version?

just gonna hop on the bandwagon and agree that the A-10 is awesome, but given 40 years there should be some room for improvement, probably mostly electronics though, the basic design is pretty damn good...

was thinking along the lines of fly by wire, cockpit layout and perhaps turreted miniguns/grenade launchers as payload, with a dedicated gunner on the plane, it might do the work of a light weight spectre, just expanding current capacity without diminishing the classic awesome, perhaps recon pod for high altitude spying....although drones probably do that better...

might get better engines too, should have been SOME improvement these last 40 years there...

I'd be curious about slipping two or more of the F-35's liftfans into the wing roots for STOL enhancements, but I strongly suspect that it wouldn't work well.

Beyond that, maybe spray it down with some sort of RAM plastic, not to make it invisible, but instead just harder to see. I doubt that it would make much difference, but maybe. Improved anti-IR for the engines?

Ultimately, the core plane is good, at most you'd be talking about improved alloys (I suspect that carbon-fiber etc. would be more delicate, due to shocks), possibly a 2-seat configuration, and accessory equipment. A turreted light gun is certainly an interesting idea (maybe the model used on the Apache?), but the A-10 might already travel too fast to use it effectively (also, it would increase the standard ammo requirements). Possibly stronger landing gear, for harsher runways.

Besides, what would be the target?

Everything.

[NOMAD]

the basic concept i agree with, the F-35 being an "affordable" multi-role stealth fighter that is adaptable to different roles (IE A model is for the air force ( light and more for dog fighting and light strikes), B is the more stronger navy version and the C being the marine VTOL/STOL replacement for the harrier).

I thought that the B was the marine version?

ARUGH your right
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... riants.jpg

A = airforce

B Marine

C Navy

[fredgiblet]

How much ammunition could be carried? I dont think anybody tried putting a 40mm Bofors on a B-26 or A-26. Besides, what would be the target?

The B-25 had a 75mm cannon in one version.

I'd be curious about slipping two or more of the F-35's liftfans into the wing roots for STOL enhancements, but I strongly suspect that it wouldn't work well.

Lots of extra dead weight and vulnerable targets to hit. STOL capability would be better served by uprated engines.

Beyond that, maybe spray it down with some sort of RAM plastic, not to make it invisible, but instead just harder to see.

God no. RAM is stupidly expensive and requires constant maintenance. The only radar that A-10s need to be worried about would be something like the Shilka and that probably wouldn't be significantly affected.

Ultimately, the core plane is good, at most you'd be talking about improved alloys (I suspect that carbon-fiber etc. would be more delicate, due to shocks), possibly a 2-seat configuration, and accessory equipment. A turreted light gun is certainly an interesting idea (maybe the model used on the Apache?), but the A-10 might already travel too fast to use it effectively (also, it would increase the standard ammo requirements). Possibly stronger landing gear, for harsher runways.

My list (in no particular order for the most part):

New engines to reduce fuel consumption, IR and noise and increase thrust
Second seat for a WSO for better situational awareness ala the A-10B
Adverse weather capability improvements again ala A-10B
Improved materials to reduce weight/improve strength
Modular gun bay to support a gun firing a smaller, more common caliber (perhaps the 25mm round the Bradley uses) to allow for larger ammunition loads (heavily dependent on studies to verify that it would still be effective against targets we are actually facing).

[Trantor]

New engines to reduce fuel consumption, IR and noise and increase thrust

Sounds good in theory.
But in practice there is no engine that lightweight in this thrust-class like the TF 34.
So you have to invest ~1 bn $$$ for a new engine, with NO chance of a civilian derivate these days, just to save 2 or 3 gallons of fuel per hour.

Second seat for a WSO for better situational awareness ala the A-10B

Not necessary in the original weapons configuration.
A 2nd man on board means an almost total new construction of the aircraft.

Adverse weather capability improvements again ala A-10B

O.K.

Improved materials to reduce weight/improve strength

Cheap way: Some plastics or carbons here and there. Yes, a few kilos could be spared.
Ultraexpensive way: Boeing-Nightmareliner-Style. Invest bn15-20$$$$, only to find out that you created a maintenance-monster-hog without ANY benefit. (The 787 saves only 300 liters kerosine per leg (!!!) HND-FRA (5100NM) against it´s predecessor 767-300. Ask ANA for long faces, or Lufthansa for an evil grin.)

Modular gun bay to support a gun firing a smaller, more common caliber (perhaps the 25mm round the Bradley uses) to allow for larger ammunition loads (heavily dependent on studies to verify that it would still be effective against targets we are actually facing).

Not possible, there is no gun bay, the entire plane is build around the main weapon.
HTH.

[fredgiblet]

Sounds good in theory.
But in practice there is no engine that lightweight in this thrust-class like the TF 34.
So you have to invest ~1 bn $$$ for a new engine, with NO chance of a civilian derivate these days, just to save 2 or 3 gallons of fuel per hour.

I find it a little difficult to believe that there's nothing better available 40+ years after the TF-34 was developed. Even if that's true, there's always the 400 variant that would be a slight improvement over the 100s that the A-10 uses.

Not possible, there is no gun bay, the entire plane is build around the main weapon.
HTH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAU-8_in_A-10.jpg

Looks like a gun bay to me...

[Trantor]

Sounds good in theory.
But in practice there is no engine that lightweight in this thrust-class like the TF 34.
So you have to invest ~1 bn $$$ for a new engine, with NO chance of a civilian derivate these days, just to save 2 or 3 gallons of fuel per hour.

I find it a little difficult to believe that there's nothing better available 40+ years after the TF-34 was developed.

Something (slightly) better is possible today, but it must be developed first.

Not possible, there is no gun bay, the entire plane is build around the main weapon.
HTH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAU-8_in_A-10.jpg

Looks like a gun bay to me...

Not in the classic sense (interchangeability, tolerance to different forces and weights etc...).
Replacing the Avenger with another gun would mean a lot of r&d and testing. And there would be no benefit, a bigger gun doesn´t fit, a smaller one makes no sense. Saving on ammunition? No one in the military cares.

[fredgiblet]

Saving money on ammunition would be the reason for the caliber of the new gun, the reason for to change would be increased ammunition load (or alternately lower weight with the same load). The reason for that would be to allow for more/longer firing passes with the same loadout. Realistically we aren't even facing LAVs that would give the 25mm a run for it's money very often, if the 25mm is capable of, for instance, demolishing/penetrating a standard Iraqi/Afghani building then it's capable of doing what we need while providing greater endurance on the field.

Of course like I said that change would be purely dependent on showing that it would be effective against the targets we're using it on, if not then never mind.

[Arioch]

The Air Force's idea of close-air support today is a B-52 orbiting at 40,000 feet with racks full of JDAM's, or a Predator drone carrying Hellfire missiles. Cost is irrelevant; the A-10 is very effective, but anything that flies so low inevitably gets shot down -- the US lost four A-10's in the first Gulf War, the most of any type (tied with the Harrier II). Those loss rates would have been considered very acceptable in a Cold War scenario, but they're not acceptable today when every operation is conducted under a media magnifying glass. They'd much rather spend the money on expensive ordnance than have to deal with the PR nightmare of dead or captured pilots.

So there's not going to be an A-10 replacement... at least, not a manned one. The F-35 may well be the last manned combat aircraft the US ever builds.