The Aircraft Image Posting Contest

[Trantor]

...the US lost four A-10's in the first Gulf War, the most of any type (tied with the Harrier II).

Five, another one made it home, but crashlanded and was w/o.
But that was still FAR below the expected numbers, to everybody´s surprise.
And they destroyed sh*tloads of Iraqi stuff, >1000 tanks, >2000 other military vehicles and >1000 artillery units in that short time. Impressive Bang for the Buck, i´d say.

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.

Pff.

[discord]

ARIOCH: which is sad indeed, just waiting for the day the 'other' guys have a electronics educated guy that builds a high powered EM jammer that makes all those nifty drones so expensive paperweights....

<edit>
and given maintenance, cost and performance, the A-10 is probably the best plane in service ANYWHERE....on planet earth anyway.
seriously though, how difficult would it be to add electronics suite and AA missile capacity? would probably do pretty well against other aircraft too.

[Grayhome]

The F-35 may well be the last manned combat aircraft the US ever builds.

Anyone else get a flash of the Gallente drone carriers right there?

[junk]

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.

Actually from what I understand, ground forces are strongly against the removal of manned combat aircraft. Instead they would strongly prefer if they could get manned fixed wing aircraft into their own forces. Since they do perform better close support than helicopters do, are able to reach the target area faster and allow for more precision than bombers do.

On top of that well integrated fixed wings allow for a lot better coordination, use of halo lights and a bunch of other things.

[Trantor]

and given maintenance, cost and performance, the A-10 is probably the best plane in service ANYWHERE....on planet earth anyway.

I second that.

seriously though, how difficult would it be to add electronics suite and AA missile capacity?

As add-on ni problem.

would probably do pretty well against other aircraft too.

Hm. Not against supersonic planes with rockets. But well against helis.

[Absalom]

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.

But useful for training, probably useful for the spotter role, and if you have the capability to carry a second crew member, then you can also allocate that space to equipment of the same approximate weight as a crew member. As long as the design & construction went well, the resulting craft would be a more flexible A-10.

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.)

And what about newer alloys, as I originally suggested? I find it doubtful that we haven't produced improved alloys appropriate for replacing some (or all) of the previously used ones. It wouldn't lower weight (probably), but it would open up the possibility to do so.

ARIOCH: which is sad indeed, just waiting for the day the 'other' guys have a electronics educated guy that builds a high powered EM jammer that makes all those nifty drones so expensive paperweights....

Fairly simple solution: give the drones orders. If they can't fulfill those orders (e.g. the communications connection required to authorize weapons fire has failed) then they return to base. You'll wind up with some stuff that doesn't go through, but most things you'll be capable of accomplishing despite the jamming (even some combat strikes, as the case may be).

and given maintenance, cost and performance, the A-10 is probably the best plane in service ANYWHERE....on planet earth anyway.
seriously though, how difficult would it be to add electronics suite and AA missile capacity? would probably do pretty well against other aircraft too.

I thought it originally had Anti-Air missles, for self-defense?

[fredgiblet]

would probably do pretty well against other aircraft too.

Any aircraft with a medium-range AAM would kill it dead. Against helos or slow transports it would do fine, but it's not going to do well against anything designed for air-to-air. It's not fast enough in the vertical OR horizontal, it's pretty maneuverable, but it can't compare to a dedicated ASF.

ARIOCH: which is sad indeed, just waiting for the day the 'other' guys have a electronics educated guy that builds a high powered EM jammer that makes all those nifty drones so expensive paperweights....

Or, you know, borrow it...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... -the-beast

I thought it originally had Anti-Air missles, for self-defense?

They can carry Sidewinders, but that's not saying THAT much.

EDIT: On a side note Digital Combat Simulation's A-10C Warthog is 33% off on Steam right now.

[TrashMan]

Should this A10 discussion be split?

I love the A10...but we're not discussing page 99 much, are we?
Alos, I believe the A10 was recently upgraded. Saw it on Future Weapons.

[fredgiblet]

Depends on what you mean by "recently", FW hasn't had a new episode in like 4 years. That was the A-10C version, new cockpit and updated weapons capabilities.

[Razor One]

The A-10 is a wonderful aircraft. The problem is that the USAF wants to kill it since it clashes with both the culture of the USAF and their intended future doctrine. This ties in with the rivalries that occur between the USAF, USMC, US Army, US Navy etc.

They're not dead yet but it's only a matter of time unless someone in the USAF brass gets their head screwed on straight or the USAF allows the US Army to fly their own A-10's for close air support of their ground pounders.

[Trantor]

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.

But useful for training, probably useful for the spotter role, and if you have the capability to carry a second crew member, then you can also allocate that space to equipment of the same approximate weight as a crew member. As long as the design & construction went well, the resulting craft would be a more flexible A-10.

Ok, but still it would be a new plane.
And as being heavier than the former one it would need new engines with military rating. I´d guess that alone would make a billion $ in r&d today, at least and only if you´re lucky.

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.)

And what about newer alloys, as I originally suggested? I find it doubtful that we haven't produced improved alloys appropriate for replacing some (or all) of the previously used ones. It wouldn't lower weight (probably), but it would open up the possibility to do so.

There is only minor improvement in duralumin since WW2.
And all advanced materials can hardly be mixed with or used as substitute for current materials.
E.g. even substituting the outer hull plates with GLARE would mean way more problems in case of hits.
Sure, you can use newer alloys here and there, but not for the overall airframe, since it would be a costly new construction.

Should this A10 discussion be split?

IMHO not, Usual thread drift.

[fredgiblet]

Ok, but still it would be a new plane.

Actually no since they've already done it before. Prototype 2-seater for night/adverse weather, only 1 made but still, it's already been done.

And as being heavier than the former one it would need new engines with military rating. I´d guess that alone would make a billion $ in r&d today, at least and only if you´re lucky.

I think you're overestimating. Brand-new engines would be a waste when they can probably take the existing engines and put a few million worth of R&D into THEM and get the same results.

since it would be a costly new construction.

Are you thinking upgrades to existing aircraft? Because I think everyone else is thinking new build, I know that's what I am thinking.

[javcs]

Ok, but still it would be a new plane.

Actually no since they've already done it before. Prototype 2-seater for night/adverse weather, only 1 made but still, it's already been done.

And as being heavier than the former one it would need new engines with military rating. I´d guess that alone would make a billion $ in r&d today, at least and only if you´re lucky.

I think you're overestimating. Brand-new engines would be a waste when they can probably take the existing engines and put a few million worth of R&D into THEM and get the same results.

since it would be a costly new construction.

Are you thinking upgrades to existing aircraft? Because I think everyone else is thinking new build, I know that's what I am thinking.

Hold up, there Fred, I think you're assuming more common sense in procurement and the politics thereof than exists.
That's what they should do. Not what they actually would wind up doing in the first place.

[fredgiblet]

Now now, consider this: The Chair Force won't want to spend any more money on new A-10s then they have to, therefore it's in the best interests of even their procurement policies to go about it the rational way.

EDIT: Two wrongs make a right.

[javcs]

Now now, consider this: The Chair Force won't want to spend any more money on new A-10s then they have to, therefore it's in the best interests of even their procurement policies to go about it the rational way.

EDIT: Two wrongs make a right.

Exactly, which they think is to replace the A-10 with UAVs, and/or an every-role airframe like the F-35.

Except for the guys who actually fly the A-10, anyways.

[TrashMan]

Except for the guys who actually fly the A-10, anyways.

And the troops on the ground. And anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together.

[javcs]

Except for the guys who actually fly the A-10, anyways.

And the troops on the ground. And anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together.

I was speaking only in reference to the Air Force.

[Trantor]

Ok, but still it would be a new plane.

Actually no since they've already done it before. Prototype 2-seater for night/adverse weather, only 1 made but still, it's already been done.

Don´t know about that XP. Fully functional? With complete "titan tub" for both crew? Same payload? Same balance? Same performance?
If "yes" on the later four, is there a benefit?
I can only see a benefit if an additional (belly-)turret would be installed, then you need two pairs of eyes. Currently you aim where you fly, no 2nd crew necessary.
But with an additional turret you need a new plane, or you lose a lot of payload.

And as being heavier than the former one it would need new engines with military rating. I´d guess that alone would make a billion $ in r&d today, at least and only if you´re lucky.

I think you're overestimating. Brand-new engines would be a waste when they can probably take the existing engines and put a few million worth of R&D into THEM and get the same results.

Heh, nonono. This is not fast´n´furios where you install a chip or some gas in your ricer.
TF-34 is obsolete cutting-edge tech. 14-stage high pressure compressor, no one does this anymore these days in an engine of this class. Even those days this was a freak-solution.
The civilian versions (CF-34) have total different compressor-cores with only ten stages, and the CF-34-10x/xx and above have only 9 stages and are actually badge-engineered CFM-56x/xx.
All of the CF-xx are way to heavy to be strapped onto an A-10.

I repeat, more power is a new engine.

since it would be a costly new construction.

Are you thinking upgrades to existing aircraft? Because I think everyone else is thinking new build, I know that's what I am thinking.

You just cannot substitute duralumin with something else.
"Something else" means a new construction of the airframe, with all the costs and teething problems.
And duralumin from the 70s is still pretty much the same like duralumin from 2012, and as there is no clearly "better" duralumin since then you don´t need no change.

[fredgiblet]

Don´t know about that XP. Fully functional? With complete "titan tub" for both crew? Same payload? Same balance? Same performance?

Yes, probably, probably not, probably. Details are sketchy since no one bought it. It DID fly and it was built from a fully functional A-10A so I would expect that it was fully functional or close to it. I doubt the design would leave the backseater unarmored (we're not the friggin Russians after all). Since the wing and engines are unchanged I would imagine that the payload would suffer for the increased weight, but this video implies otherwise. Of course the video doesn't mention ANY negatives since I'm fairly certain it's an advertisement.

If "yes" on the later four, is there a benefit?

Yes. Having a second crewman means that you have a second pair of eyes available, meaning the pilot can keep his eyes on the terrain while the WSO looks for targets. Also having a WSO means that you've got someone dedicated to operating the sensors the N/AV version adds in. Lastly the N/AV variant had full flight controls in both cockpits which slightly improves survivability since if only one of the pilots is injured the other can still fly the plane back.

I can only see a benefit if an additional (belly-)turret would be installed, then you need two pairs of eyes. Currently you aim where you fly, no 2nd crew necessary.

You aim where you fly for unguided weapons like the gun and rockets, but I believe that Mavericks have off-boresight launch capability, which means the WSO could launch them at targets off to the sides. Sidewinders have this ability too IIRC.

I repeat, more power is a new engine.

Or the 400 variant of the TF34, since it probably wouldn't need THAT much more power.

[Trantor]

I doubt the design would leave the backseater unarmored (we're not the friggin Russians after all).

Heh, or Brits (No ejection seats for the lower ranks in their Vulcans...).

If "yes" on the later four, is there a benefit?

Yes. Having a second crewman means that you have a second pair of eyes available, meaning the pilot can keep his eyes on the terrain while the WSO looks for targets. Also having a WSO means that you've got someone dedicated to operating the sensors the N/AV version adds in. Lastly the N/AV variant had full flight controls in both cockpits which slightly improves survivability since if only one of the pilots is injured the other can still fly the plane back.

Hm. I´d still rather try it with better electronics, add-ons of course.