The Air Force may soon start combat-testing new aircraft that could fight alongside the A-10

[Skull Pilot]

Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.

The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.

Why fuck with a proven design.

just build more Warthogs

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.

The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.

Why fuck with a proven design.

just build more Warthogs

The design might be okay but it's so outdated in almost every other detail. It's too huge, too easy to bag with a should fired missile, has way to little power to get itself out of trouble. It's slow coming in, even slower during the attack, and even slower trying to clear itself from the bad guys counterfire. There needs to be so many upgrades that if they did build another one it would be like an A-10 and a half or an A-11. And cost in the upwards of 60 mil a copy. Even upgrading the A-10 to bigger engines and better wings would run as much or more than either the AT-6 or the A-29 and you would still be taking them out of service starting in 2021 because the airframes run out of time on them. You can rebuild everything else but when the part that holds it all together becomes unsafe, it's headed for DM like about 150 of them already have.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.

The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.

this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.

Hey, it's paid for years ago. Fly it till the airframe cracks or the wings fall off. It's cost effective right now.

 

[westwall]

I don't know where you get your 150 range from but it is inaccurate. For the CAS role the A-10's combat radius is 250 nm with a 1.8 hour loiter time, and a 10 minute combat power time.

Easy. You are using a clean A-10 range with only it's gun. That isn't how it's flown in combat. In order get the 250 nm range, you can't be carrying anything other than a drop tank. Start loading it down with the other weapons and you not only shorten the speed but you also shorten the range. I am probably being generous even 150 nm with it loaded for actual combat and expecting it to do any loiter time. It's like saying a F-16 has range and payload equal to the F-35A when the F-16 is loaded for combat. Hell, the F-16 loaded out is lucky to even get over Mach 1.

You keep using the "Clean" ratings with just the gun. It just doesn't work like that and still get your 250nm range with the 1.8 hour loiter time.

Wrong. The numbers I quoted are for the aircraft when configured for the CAS role. They are well known.

Well known by whom? I show the ferry range of just 800 miles. That is without bombs, missiles and loaded light on the gun ammo along with at least 2 drop tanks. Now, you made the claim, let's see the cite for it. Otherwise, my 150 nm stands.

A-10 / Current Aircraft of the United States Air Force - USAF.com
Range: 288 miles (250 nautical miles) carrying 9,500 pounds (4,275 kilograms) of weapons and with a 1.7-hour loiter time

Translation: 250 nm means it has a 125 mile radius with a 1.7 hour loiter. And it gets the credit for other birds. For instance, one would claim only the A-10 can do CAS. The last highly decorated CAS was started with an AC-130 and finished by Apaches. Since most of the CAS missions right now are Spec Ops, the A-10 is not their first choice. The AC-130 is the first choice. But since those missions aren't reported openly, no one outside of USAF and Army Spec Ops records that data. Considering ALL troops on the front lines are Spec Ops, they use their own birds for support along with AH-64 Support if it goes on for more than a few minutes. Spec Ops has ZERO A-10s assigned to it. Now, if ALL front lined troops are Spec Ops care to tell me where all these A-10s are being used for CAS.

Newsflash: The AC-130 is even a more accurate weapon system. If you think the 30 mil on the A-10 is impressive, check out when Spectre opens up with it's 30 (25mm depending on model) mm and 105mm. And it places them within a few feet. And if you think a AC-130 can't hit a moving target, they routinely nail even running and zig zagging ground troops. The AC-130 ws originally designed for CAS but it got side tracked into nailing supply lines, tanks, ferries and anything along a supply line. And it does it all above the altitude that a should fired missile can hit.

The (O)A-10 is way tto specialized these days. Even when there is a large formation of bad guys, they use the other birds to soften them up. And that includes the AC-130. Until that is done, the A-10 can't operate.

Did you even bother to read your own link? I think not!


Range: 288 miles (250 nautical miles) carrying 9,500 pounds (4,275 kilograms) of weapons and with a 1.7-hour loiter time

Armament: One 30 mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel Gatling gun; up to 16,000 pounds (7,200 kilograms) of mixed ordnance on eight under-wing and three under-fuselage pylon stations, including 500 pounds (225 kilograms) of retarded bombs, 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) of general-purpose bombs, incendiary and Rockeye II cluster bombs, combined effects munitions, Maverick missiles and laser-guided/electro-optically guided bombs; infrared countermeasure flares; electronic countermeasure chaff; jammer pods; 2.75-inch (6.99 centimeters) rockets; illumination flares and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.

Crew: One

Okay, let's go with the quote and put it into Radius instead of one way. 250nm divided by 2 (R=D/2) then I was being gentle with my 150 nm radius. We'll just use the link. CAS has only a 250 nm range or 125 nm radius carrying the normal 9,500 lbs of weapons. This includes the cannon ammo. In Iraq or Syria, the 125nm radius with 9,500 lbs of ordinance is correct. You stated 500 miles. You accept my Cite since it's pretty well official. But in order to use the A-10 in Afghanistan which is higher altitude, the A-10 has to lighten his load just to take off. It's not sea level there. It's about 6000 feet starting out. The A-10 is extremely underpowered to begin with. Now, try and use it for Afghanistan and it's not going to fare too well. Even the AH-64 has to lighten it's load. What works best in mountainous areas is not either the A-10 or the AH-64. The AC-130, F-15E, F-16 and F-18 have to carry that load.

Even so, there are more CAS missions flown even in Iraq and Syria by the AH-64 than the A-10. Are you telling me that the AG-64 can't do the job? It's doing it every single day. While the regular Army never has figured out exactly the mission for the AH-64, Spec Ops certainly has. And almost ALL of the troops in Iran, Syria and Afghanistan are Spec Ops from at least 4 or the branches of service. The only time I have recently heard that the A-10 was being used was for some high profile mission with other AC involved as well. The A-10 has become, not a world winning bird, but a Headlines grabber. You are buying into that.

BTW, the first of the last 185 A-10s runs out of air frame time in 2021. And you want to dump millions into something that has only 4 to 6 years left on it's life cycle? If they wanted the A-10 to stick around for at least 20 years, they would have to restart the A-10 line and hopefully get bigger motors on it. If the A-10 were in production today it would cost as much as a brand new F-18E. Not going to happen. It's cheaper to use other assets and bring in light attack birds. The A-10 would have been worthless in Nam. Too short range. It's designed to go heads up with heavy Armor and it's doubtful if it can do that anymore with just it's cannon.

They are not going to augment the A-10, they are to replace it and pretty damned quick. 4 years isn't very much time in military procurement planning.

Clearly you know nothing of what you speak. Combat Range is there AND back. Thus 288 nm (per your link) is the range TO the target. A 1.7 hour loiter, AND a 10 minute high intensity combat window, then 288 BACK home. Learn what the terms are before you make a fool of yourself yet again.

 

[westwall]

I think I'll take Daryl Hunt's opinions in this discussion. His arguments are the most coherent.

And as proven by me, he doesn't know even the basics. So, feel free to follow a known failure. That seems to be a progressive trait.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I think I'll take Daryl Hunt's opinions in this discussion. His arguments are the most coherent.

And as proven by me, he doesn't know even the basics. So, feel free to follow a known failure. That seems to be a progressive trait.

pointing out that Your claiming to be what you clearly are not is a progressive bait? I can tell when you can lie not more. You go into the insults.

Here we go again. You are supposed to be a Moderator. Now, be a good little moderator and write yourself a warning. And if you continue, ban yourself.