USAF Hiding Its Controversial Flyoff Between the A-10 and F-35

Oh! Just remembered this bit of A-10 trivia. Will have to go looking to see what has come of it here several years later.
A-10 Warthog To Take On Oklahoma's Thunderstorms
Posted: Feb 05, 2015 7:50 PM CST Updated: Feb 06, 2015 7:05 AM CST
https://www.news9.com/story/28039187/a-10-warthog-to-take-on-oklahomas-thunderstorms

and

A suitable platform for storm penetration, risk analysis for the SPA-10 aircraft modification
Abstract
The SPA-10 project, sponsored by U.S. National Science Foundation, is to acquire and qualify a replacement for the retired T-28 “storm penetration” aircraft previously used to acquire meteorological data to enable understanding and modelling of mid-continent thunderstorms. The National Science Foundation selected the Fairchild A-10 (bailed from the U.S. Air Force) as the platform to be adapted to perform the storm penetration mission to altitudes of eleven kilometers, and funded Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies (CIRPAS) as prime contractor. An expert panel conducted a review of the SPA-10 project in 2014 and recommended a risk analysis addressing hazards to the aircraft and pilots, such as icing, hail, turbulence and lightning. This paper presents the results of the risk analysis performed in response to this need, ...

Click to expand...

https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/51919

and

Updates on Development of the Storm-penetrating Thunderhog Research Aircraft
2 November 2016
The current status of the A-10 “Thunderhog” storm research aircraft is that it has been “demilitarized” (all combat and other military operations equipment removed), re-balanced for flight, and outfitted with a generous supply of research power. Additional work is needed to complete a de-icing system and other aeronautical modifications, provide for installation of data acquisition systems and mounting of instrumentation on the aircraft, and modernize the cockpit avionics and communications. Due to changes in the way research is managed at the Naval Postgraduate School, and other considerations, CIRPAS can no longer manage the project. At the end of September the aircraft was flown from the Zivco Aeronautics facility in Guthrie, OK, to the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Research Aviation Facility in Broomfield, CO, where it will be stored while the National Science Foundation (NSF) decides how best to complete the project. In storage at CIRPAS is a large supply of spare parts, support equipment, and instrumentation that will support completion of the project, and ultimately, research operations. The time frame for the NSF decision is probably 6-9 months.
Below are two photos, ...

Click to expand...

https://webpages.sdsmt.edu/~adetwile/

and

NSF to Turn Tank Killer Into Storm Chaser

1. David Malakoff

See all authors and affiliations

Science 11 Nov 2011:
Vol. 334, Issue 6057, pp. 747
DOI: 10.1126/science.334.6057.747

The Thunderbolt, currently mothballed at a desert storage facility in Arizona, “will be completely taken apart and put back together for us,” says CIRPAS manager Robert Bluth. Mechanics will also remove the Thunderbolt's lethal, nose-mounted 30-millimeter cannon, creating “just a huge area for scientific instruments,” says NSF's James Huning, who has been coordinating the conversion. The plane also has plenty of “hard points” under the wings that, instead of holding missiles and bombs, will eventually carry sensors and instrument pods. NSF expects to spend a total of $13 million on the conversion.

Airborne instruments play a key role in scientists' efforts to understand and predict storms. Although researchers have long studied storm dynamics using ground-based radars, weather balloons, and aircraft that can fly above or below bad weather, “you really have to go right into the storm to get the most useful data,” says meteorologist Terry Schuur, who works at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Oklahoma. And just a select few aircraft are capable of penetrating the interiors of big convective storms, such as thunderstorms, that churn with enormous energy.

The new plane's capabilities are a wish come true for many atmospheric scientists, who will begin submitting proposals to NSF sometime next year. Schuur, for instance, wants to take advantage of the Thunderbolt's ability to attain an altitude of 11 kilometers (compared with 7 kilometers for the old T-28). That extra height means it can reach into the icy, supercooled tops of giant, anvil-shaped thunderheads and collect real-world data to improve computer models of how hail forms. (In tests, the A-10's engines were able to “inhale” nectarine-sized hail “and just keep going,” NSF's Huning says.)

Click to expand...

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6057/747.full?rss=1

Viperfixr said:

Winston, none of the A-10s in the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (aka boneyard) are C model aircraft. Those old A models are not very useful shells that have been raided over and over for decades. I helped put 300+ there at my first assignment from 1991 to 1995. We started pulling parts from those jets immediately, like 27 years ago. Decades later, almost none of those jets could ever be brought back to flyable status, and even if you did they'd be semi-useless A models unable to be useful.

Click to expand...

Amazing. The "all used up for parts" reason for the ~400 "missing" deactivated A-10s occurred to me, but it didn't seem credible. Thanks for the insight.

I was responsible for the A-10s at Nellis AFB when I was there for 5.5 years, all told--not just kinda familiar with them. A Hog rolling into periodic maintenance called a Phase Inspection was usually a bit of a horror show. Cracked gun mounts, structural defects, fuel system issues/FOD, engine troubles, and so much more. We could "phase" and F-16 in half the time. That's why the Cost Per Flying Hour on the Hog is climbing. It's not a B-52 and will never be kept flying forever more. This heavy G pulling, bomb hauling and 30mm gun shooting airplane that's been flown the snot out of it in constant conflicts over the last 27+ years is running out of life. At a certain point very near to now, a newer A-10 makes a lot more sense.

Click to expand...

I'm all for a new A-10 because an F-35 doing the A-10's job well just doesn't seem credible to me and I strongly suspect that's being pushed for reasons related to limited finances.

I've seen the Hog in combat, and she's a fearsome beast that you do NOT want to be on the wrong side of. Love the jet and what it can do for the close air support mission. Irreplaceable in many respects. It is still old as tactical aircraft go and getting too expensive as it ages out of affordable sustainability (look up the wing replacement deal). As a 27 year USAF Fighter Aircraft Maintainer, I repeat: we need a new attack platform done new with the same A-10 design philosophy criteria. We don't fly P-51Ds or F-4s anymore for a good reason.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I too would want the replacement to be as ground fire survivable and potent as the A-10, but I haven't seen anything in the USAF's replacements being considered that comes even remotely close to that.

modeltrains said:

Oh! Just remembered this bit of A-10 trivia. Will have to go looking to see what has come of it here several years later.

A-10 Warthog To Take On Oklahoma's Thunderstorms
Posted: Feb 05, 2015 7:50 PM CST Updated: Feb 06, 2015 7:05 AM CST

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I never would have seen that use coming. Thanks.

Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities
13 Jun 2013

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com...n-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/

A different kind of criticism came in an interview for this article with former Pentagon analyst Pierre Sprey, widely credited as the force behind the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

Sprey doesn’t think a program aimed explicitly at Afghanistan will get funded when “we’re leaving that country and getting out of that war.” Sprey believes present-day technology would enable a vastly improved, cheaper A-10 type of aircraft that would be suitable for all intensities of warfare.

“Piddling around with light attack is not the way to help out our troops,” Sprey told Defense Media Network. “In any case, a ‘light attack aircraft’ isn’t going to happen in part because we’re leaving Afghanistan next year [Ha! - W] and mostly because the Air Force despises the mission. We could do much better today if we developed a smaller, hotter, more lethal and survivable version of the A-10 and put the emphasis on ‘close support’ rather than on ‘light attack.’ Our troops need and deserve a true close support aircraft more than ever.”

modeltrains said:

Oh! Just remembered this bit of A-10 trivia. Will have to go looking to see what has come of it here several years later.
A-10 Warthog To Take On Oklahoma's Thunderstorms

Click to expand...

This idea started back in about 2011. Seems like a decent idea; fly a combat-proven tough aircraft into one of the most harsh environments in the sky. The redundancy built into the system should make it survivable in all but the highest rated tornado. But it couldn't survive terrestrial bureaucracy.
https://www.koco.com/article/a-10-tornado-project-in-holding-pattern/9135445
That was more than a year ago. Looks like the (great!) plan was shot down...

OV-10 in any form would never, ever replace the A-10C. It would be a superb light attack platform like the A-29 or AT-6, but way to small to carry a GAU-8 or similar 30mm gun and enough ammo to make a difference.

Viperfixr said:

Who here drives a K car anymore?

Click to expand...

Bing!

Winston said:

In that vein, maybe we could afford both the A-10 and the F-35 if this kind of crap didn't go on. From personal experience, I once submitted a price challenge when the supply system showed that the integrated circuit I was ordering cost $109. Thing was, via a commercial source, the milspec version of that common chip cost... wait for it... $1.09. Misplaced decimal point?:

Air Force’s $1,200 Coffee Cups Could Last Longer Thanks to 3D Printing
5 Jul 2018

https://www.military.com/defensetec...ups-could-last-longer-thanks-3d-printing.html

The U.S. Air Force has spent thousands of dollars -- $56,000 over the last three years, to be exact -- on cups that can reheat coffee and tea on air refueling tankers.

No, not a fancy "Game of Thrones"-like chalice adorned with jewels. Just a regular, old-fashioned metal cup.
But the pricey cups are fragile and often break when dropped. Airmen at Travis Air Force Base, California, are working on the problem, according to a service release.

Travis' Phoenix Spark program is a rapid innovation office using artificial intelligence and rapid prototyping to bridge gaps that currently exist across the force.

"The handle currently on the hot cup has a square bottom, which creates a weak point on the handle so any time it is dropped, the handle splits shortly after impact," said Nicholas Wright, a volunteer 3D designer and printer with the Phoenix Spark office.
"Our new rounded handle reduces that weak point. The handle we designed is stronger and capable of being printed at most Air Force bases," he said in the release.

According to Air Mobility Command officials, the 60th Aerial Port Squadron purchased 10 hot cups for $9,630 in 2016. The price for each cup surged from $693 to $1,220 in 2018, resulting in a cost of $32,000 for 25 cups -- a price jump of $527 per cup, the release said.

Part of the issue, officials said, is that replacement parts for the cup handle are no longer available. Each time a handle breaks, the Air Force must order a new cup.

"Unfortunately, we can't order replacement parts when the handle breaks, which requires us to purchase a whole new hot cup every time one breaks," said 1st Lt. Dennis Abramov, 60th APS passenger operations flight commander.

"The hot cup problem was shared with us because the price keeps increasing," added Capt. Ryan McGuire, 60th Air Mobility Wing Phoenix Spark chief and a KC-10 Extender pilot with the 9th Air Refueling Squadron. "Our office was asked to see if we could produce a 3D-designed handle that is stronger than the current one."

McGuire compared the 3D-printed handle to a tree, layered through many rings to give it strength. "The new handle has stacked layers with a solid piece around it so it's similar to the layers of a tree," he said.

Each 3D-printed handle will cost roughly 50 cents.

"It's much cheaper for us to replace the handle on 40 cups at about 50 cents per handle rather than purchasing 40 cups for more than $1,200 per cup," he said.

Wright said it took about a week to develop a solution for the hot cup handle "from learning the software to figuring how to physically print it."

"We talked to air crew members about how they'd like it designed. They recommended a more ergonomic design. The reason for this is because the original handle is placed upside down, so aircrews wanted a mix between comfort and strength. We achieved that in about seven days," he said.

The Air Force is awaiting approval from the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to start printing and fielding cup handle parts.

"They are working through all the processes, quality standards and materials to try and put out a playbook on how we can 3D print the handle so it's approved to be on an Air Force aircraft," McGuire said. "Once we get that guidance, we can print the handles at Travis."

While the Air Force has tried to do more with 3D printing experimentation, it often runs into obstacles.

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Will Roper recently told DefenseOne the service could do more with 3D-printed parts.

But it doesn't inherently own the rights to manufacture specific components, he said. Nor does it have a surefire way of dealing with that kind of intellectual property.

Taxpayers are paying a high price as a result, he said.

For example, Roper said he could 3D print new toilet seat covers for C-17 Globemaster IIIs at a cost of roughly $300 per seat. But because the manufacturer owns the rights, the service must rely on industry to produce the item at a whopping $10,000 per seat.

"You'll think, 'There's no way it costs that,' " Roper told DefenseOne last month. "No, it doesn't, but you're asking a company to produce it and they're [busy] producing something else."

Click to expand...

there is a little bit of the rest of the story with these prices . this is something that came out some time ago.$36 screws,$7600 coffee makers,$600 toilet seats. the prices came out, but the rest of the story didnt come out though.
our govt cant put something like
"$6,000,000 for black ops"
in the budget. it has to be covered up somehow.

Below is an excerpt I've extracted from Pierre Spray's 1982 Close Air Support concept paper PDF. Keep in mind that massed attacks by the Warsaw Pact was the threat he was addressing and that smart air-to-ground weapons are much smarter now. He mainly wanted a gatling gun as the Blitzfighter's armament. 2000 planes would have required 2000 pilots. Perhaps the USAF could have re-established the Warrant Officer program to fly the simpler aircraft in a mission the USAF didn't want anyway.

Air Force inches closer to warrant officers: Could they fix the pilot crisis?
6 Apr 2018

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...ant-officers-could-they-fix-the-pilot-crisis/

Viperfixr said:

OV-10 in any form would never, ever replace the A-10C. It would be a superb light attack platform like the A-29 or AT-6, but way to small to carry a GAU-8 or similar 30mm gun and enough ammo to make a difference.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think there is nothing close to the A-10. The OV-10 is truly a light attack aircraft. Its ability to loiter is unmatchable.

Viperfixr said:

OV-10 in any form would never, ever replace the A-10C. It would be a superb light attack platform like the A-29 or AT-6, but way to small to carry a GAU-8 or similar 30mm gun and enough ammo to make a difference.

Click to expand...

So this may get me shouted out of the thread. Is the GAU-8 needed? as I understand it, that gun was designed for destroying heavy armor, where the A-10's current mission is largely taking out light vehicles. I know everyone loves the BRRT! but does it make sense in the future? If there is a main battle tank on the other side of the line, is the pilot really going to use a gun, or will they use a missile? What are the chances of meeting a tank in the uncontested airspace where the A-10 is likely to be successful? If it's not a main battle tank, how large a gun is really needed to destroy it?

If the GAU-8 isn't really needed, is there a smaller one that is still useful, like a 20mm? Are those/ammo still even in production? Along the same lines, would it be useful to have a .50 caliber option for taking out pickups and gasoline tankers? That enormous gun comes with a lot of downsides, from weight of gun and ammo to cost of ammo to structural issues and more that I'm probably not thinking of. Again, it's going back to getting a successful mission with minimum cost. Sure, a missile will cost more than bullets, but maybe firing cheaper bullets and an occasional missile would be cheaper overall.

I may be making false assumptions--if so please tell me.

boatgeek said:

So this may get me shouted out of the thread. Is the GAU-8 needed? as I understand it, that gun was designed for destroying heavy armor, where the A-10's current mission is largely taking out light vehicles. I know everyone loves the BRRT! but does it make sense in the future? If there is a main battle tank on the other side of the line, is the pilot really going to use a gun, or will they use a missile? What are the chances of meeting a tank in the uncontested airspace where the A-10 is likely to be successful? If it's not a main battle tank, how large a gun is really needed to destroy it?

If the GAU-8 isn't really needed, is there a smaller one that is still useful, like a 20mm? Are those/ammo still even in production? Along the same lines, would it be useful to have a .50 caliber option for taking out pickups and gasoline tankers? That enormous gun comes with a lot of downsides, from weight of gun and ammo to cost of ammo to structural issues and more that I'm probably not thinking of. Again, it's going back to getting a successful mission with minimum cost. Sure, a missile will cost more than bullets, but maybe firing cheaper bullets and an occasional missile would be cheaper overall.

I may be making false assumptions--if so please tell me.

Click to expand...

There are currently over 10 weapons systems using the 30mmx173mm ammunition, the GAU-8, Goalkeeper CIWS, Orelikon KCA, and the Bradleys BushmasterII cannon are just a few so ammo is still made and plentiful. Caliber makes a difference mainly due to the payload it can carry. As for uncontested airspace, no combat airspace is ever "uncontested" pilots take risks everytime they go in for support missions and the enemy always shoots back, every soldier is trained on how to best lead an aircraft to improve chances of hitting, and many are taught to use handheld SAM launchers like the Stinger which is pretty effective at taking out light aircraft. As for the 50cal its useful in today's combat arena against only the lightest armor, as even lightly armored trucks are capable of defeating its rounds, and the 20mm is only slightly more effective against modern vehicles.

rharshberger said:

There are currently over 10 weapons systems using the 30mmx173mm ammunition, the GAU-8, Goalkeeper CIWS, Orelikon KCA, and the Bradleys BushmasterII cannon are just a few so ammo is still made and plentiful. Caliber makes a difference mainly due to the payload it can carry. As for uncontested airspace, no combat airspace is ever "uncontested" pilots take risks everytime they go in for support missions and the enemy always shoots back, every soldier is trained on how to best lead an aircraft to improve chances of hitting, and many are taught to use handheld SAM launchers like the Stinger which is pretty effective at taking out light aircraft. As for the 50cal its useful in today's combat arena against only the lightest armor, as even lightly armored trucks are capable of defeating its rounds, and the 20mm is only slightly more effective against modern vehicles.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing me up. I used the wrong word with "uncontested". I remember in earlier threads that the main upside of F-XX aircraft in previous conflicts was that the A-10 didn't have good enough survivability in areas with modern SAM systems and potentially under threat of opposing air force fighters. In theory at least, the F-35 would have a significant edge in those spaces, as the F-15, -16, and -18 did in prior conflicts. You're right that there is no truly uncontested airspace, but there are lower risk airspaces. If I remember correctly, the A-10 is reasonably armored to protect plane and pilot from small arms fire and maybe shoulder-launched SAMs.

boatgeek said:

Thanks for clearing me up. I used the wrong word with "uncontested". I remember in earlier threads that the main upside of F-XX aircraft in previous conflicts was that the A-10 didn't have good enough survivability in areas with modern SAM systems and potentially under threat of opposing air force fighters.

Click to expand...

That is not currently nor in the foreseeable future the sort of threat environment where it would be required.

In theory at least, the F-35 would have a significant edge in those spaces, as the F-15, -16, and -18 did in prior conflicts.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, which why there is an "A" in A-10 (attack) and an "F" in F-35 (fighter). An "A" is optimised for close air support of ground forces while an "F" is optimised for air-to-air combat. The problem is trying to do both with the same aircraft which then becomes of jack of all trades, but master of none.

If I remember correctly, the A-10 is reasonably armored to protect plane and pilot from small arms fire and maybe shoulder-launched SAMs.

Click to expand...

The A-10 pilot sits in a titanium "bathtub":

The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 1,200 lb (540 kg) of titanium aircraft armor, referred to as a "bathtub". The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds. It is made up of titanium plates with thicknesses from 0.5 to 1.5 inches (13 to 38 mm) determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. The armor makes up almost 6 percent of the aircraft's empty weight. Any interior surface of the tub directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon spall shield to protect against shell fragmentation. The front windscreen and canopy are resistant to small arms fire.

The A-10 engines are high bypass turbofans which have a lower temperature exhaust which is concealed by the specific horizontal and vertical stabilizer arrangement used. As a backup for loss of hydraulics, the plane has a cable control backup. Note how the main gear tires extend below the main gear pod, thereby allowing a less damaging belly landing if the gear won't drop. The plane is a B-R-I-L-L-I-A-N-T design.

On the 30mm's originally intended role for tank busting, the AP incendiary round is also very useful for sandbag and dirt bunker breaching and the fragmentation from the high caliber HE rounds allow a "close is good enough" capability while, for instance, a 50 cal round requires a direct hit on (any part of) personnel. That said, a 20mm would be adequate for anti-personnel, anti-material, and light anti-armor, leaving the heavy armor to guided bombs and missiles.

Winston said:

Absolutely, which why there is an "A" in A-10 (attack) and an "F" in F-35 (fighter). An "A" is optimised for close air support of ground forces while an "F" is optimised for air-to-air combat. The problem is trying to do both

Click to expand...

F/A-18? does both..

dr wogz said:

F/A-18? does both..

Click to expand...

I'd guess that the F-15 Strike Eagle may be just as much of an "F/A" as the F/A-18, they just don't call it that. Regardless of what they call it, multirole aircraft are never as good as aircraft optimised for one role. They simply cannot be any more than a vehicle optimised for extreme off-road performance is best for highway use. It's just obvious common sense.

Winston said:

That is not currently nor in the foreseeable future the sort of threat environment where it would be required.

Click to expand...

I don't think that we can say for certain what is foreseeable future for a weapons system that will be around for 30+ years. In 1988, we were worried about Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap. Thankfully that never happened. In 1998, we were flying in moderate threat airspaces in the former Yugoslavia supporting local ground forces. In 2003, we were flying in moderate threat airspaces in Iraq and low threat airspaces in Afghanistan. In 2016, we were using half-million dollar missiles to take out ISIS pickup trucks in Syria and Iraq. That's a little bit revisionist history, but not too far off. I don't think we can posit what's a foreseeable future combat environment. That said, I agree that we can talk about different ways to achieve the same mission in different environments.

Winston said:

I'd guess that the F-15 Strike Eagle may be just as much of an "F/A" as the F/A-18, they just don't call it that. Regardless of what they call it, multirole aircraft are never as good as aircraft optimised for one role. They simply cannot be any more than a vehicle optimised for extreme off-road performance is best for highway use. It's just obvious common sense.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, I can't afford a fleet of 20 cars that are specialized to every different task I might have. If I have a boat and an 80-mile round trip commute but can only afford two cars, I'd get a fuel-efficient compact for commuting and a truck for towing the boat. As long as they both did the tasks I needed acceptably, they don't need to be barely street legal NASCAR rigs or dedicated offroad vehicles.

Winston said:

I'd guess that the F-15 Strike Eagle may be just as much of an "F/A" as the F/A-18, they just don't call it that. Regardless of what they call it, multirole aircraft are never as good as aircraft optimised for one role. They simply cannot be any more than a vehicle optimised for extreme off-road performance is best for highway use. It's just obvious common sense.

Click to expand...

Tactics change every year. And we aren't privy to all of the details.

For example, a pilot told me that the legacy fighters aren't being built with optimized radar signatures. They're cutting costs, and choosing not to max out our ability to reduce the F15EX's signature. They'd never be as stealthy as an F35, but strategically quite close. Why? Because it isn't needed. There's a role for radar visible fighters. And it's a big one. And there's plenty of sneaky tricks up the sleeves of the older (cheaper to operate) fighter designs. There's situations where an F35 or even an F22 isn't going to disappear. And wasting one of those on such a mission, is economically unviable. Not every aircraft needs to be top shelf expensive, for every mission. Maintenance on an F22 or F35 is quit laborious, and the decision had to be made, that we need normal fighters, still.

Only air to air combat is a role that an aircraft needs to be optimized for. And that's ONLY if your tactics fail. If your tactics are sound, then your legacy fighters still excel. Legacy fighters teamed up with stealth fighters is a wildly successful tactic, in practice and training already.

We don't need a perfectly optimized ground support aircraft. We don't need a perfect F/A. Our options: F35, F15EX, F15E, F18E, Apache, and Cobra. Then you have the Navy (what's left of them), Army arty, B52's, B2's, etc. etc. etc. The A10 is about as obsolete as it gets, and last I checked..............we don't have the cash to string along an aircraft simply because it's cool.

MidOH said:

The A10 is about as obsolete as it gets

Click to expand...

As an Army guy, I completely disagree with this statement. This aircraft still had a role that only it can perform with the protection it provides. The F35 and Apache combined cannot perform the tasks with the degree of completeness as the A10. It could perform this task for 50 more years with the right updates.

F-35 can't perform the A-10's CAS mission. Like all fast movers, it lacks persistence and it doesn't have the deep magazine of the A-10.

How much persistence do you want? It has external stores and is capable of mid air refueling.

And the A10 lacks the battlefield view of a gen5 system. I'd rather have an F35 or F15EX zip by, than get fragged by my own A10. Laser designators are hard enough to work with, as is.

MidOH said:

How much persistence do you want? It has external stores and is capable of mid air refueling.

And the A10 lacks the battlefield view of a gen5 system. I'd rather have an F35 or F15EX zip by, than get fragged by my own A10. Laser designators are hard enough to work with, as is.

Click to expand...

A10 pilots know their work and the aircraft are being upgraded with better and better sensors. An A10 will take a lot more punishment than a F35 anyday. Why do we still use B52's when we have B1,'s and B2's...because they do certain jobs better. The A10's ability to loiter for long periods of thime without resupply is a massive plus on battle field availability. Also a machinegunner with a M2 50cal can potentially take an F35 out of action, that same gunner will think twice before firing on an A10 due to the fact that the A10 can almost immediately engage him due to its slower speeds and the 30mm is a nasty piece of work when compared to the 20mm and 25mm guns other aircraft use. The 30mm's biggest detriment is its size. For what the A10 is designed for its the best tool for the job.

MidOH said:

How much persistence do you want? It has external stores and is capable of mid air refueling.

And the A10 lacks the battlefield view of a gen5 system. I'd rather have an F35 or F15EX zip by, than get fragged by my own A10. Laser designators are hard enough to work with, as is.

Click to expand...

If the only argument is that the A10 lacks a gen5 system, then why not advocate for the next upgrade of the A10 to include a gen5 system? If we're integrating everything electronically (and we are) this is going to happen anyway. It's going to happen to the B1's, the B-52's, and every other legacy system still in use.

MidOH said:

How much persistence do you want? It has external stores and is capable of mid air refueling.

And the A10 lacks the battlefield view of a gen5 system. I'd rather have an F35 or F15EX zip by, than get fragged by my own A10. Laser designators are hard enough to work with, as is.

Click to expand...

External stores increase the RCS, and thereby degrade one of its key features.
It would be interesting to see how a newer generation F15 would match up against a high RCS F35 in a combat situation.

You don't need stealth to complete an A10 mission.

The new f15's don't get the complete RCS treatment. Too costly and not needed. You don't buy a Porsche to plow fields.

Peartree said:

If the only argument is that the A10 lacks a gen5 system, then why not advocate for the next upgrade of the A10 to include a gen5 system? If we're integrating everything electronically (and we are) this is going to happen anyway. It's going to happen to the B1's, the B-52's, and every other legacy system still in use.

Click to expand...

Sure. $$$$$. The F15EX gets the 5th gen packages. And it gets conformal internal weapon bays, swappable with the conformal fuel tanks.

None left to put in the A10.

And the A10 only has a short range. If it can make it to the battle field without getting shot down or running out of fuel, or on time, it's drop a few bombs and go. I haven't heard anyone claim to have seen it loiter anywhere. And the A10 is absolutely useless in a high threat environment.

Any place an A10 can fly without exploding in a most egregious fashion, the F35 can aerial refuel. Also the F15 and F18. Heck, the F18's can refuel F18's.

https://www.defensenews.com/2016/05/05/f-35-vs-a-10-air-force-test-pilot-weighs-in/
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/R46801.pdf

MidOH said:

Any place an A10 can fly without exploding in a most egregious fashion, the F35 can aerial refuel. Also the F15 and F18. Heck, the F18's can refuel F18's.

https://www.defensenews.com/2016/05/05/f-35-vs-a-10-air-force-test-pilot-weighs-in/
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/R46801.pdf

Click to expand...

The A10 can aerial refuel, while the F35 has a slight edge in total weapons capacity (18000lbs vs 16000lbs), it still doesn't have the 30mm Avenger (with a cannon similar to the 25mm in the F35) the A10 would have similar capacity. The A10 shines at combat under 1000' AGL, and is a slow enough aircraft the pilot can evaluate strikes, and re-engage again if necessary almost immediately. I have seen A10's in action (soldiers perspective) and in a combat situation I want either it or a AC-130 providing close air support for my team. Most of the time the first idea a enemy has that an A10 is even in the area is when it kills them, same with the F35. The F35 fully loaded for ATG operations probably has a RCS approaching that of a barn door as it has a lot of ordinance hanging on the wings, unless of course the ordinance is all stealthy stuff, and if the F35 is approaching the combat area at the speeds an A10 does, its survivability is less when subjected to ground fire.

But what happens when we encounter a nation/state with technology near ours, the cyberwar (battlefield and rear areas) and killing of satellites, is going to potentially cut heavily into one of the things the F35 excels at collecting and sharing information.

Peartree said:

If the only argument is that the A10 lacks a gen5 system, then why not advocate for the next upgrade of the A10 to include a gen5 system? If we're integrating everything electronically (and we are) this is going to happen anyway. It's going to happen to the B1's, the B-52's, and every other legacy system still in use.

Click to expand...

“Happened” to the B-52s…

Bravo52 said:

“Happened” to the B-52s…

Click to expand...

I had a late friend who was a B52 pilot (Lt. Colonel M. McCullough) who loved the plane and how even after 50 years it was still getting better, and I used to watch them pass right over my house when I lived in the Deep Creek area just north of Fairchild.

MidOH said:

You don't buy a Porsche to plow fields.

Click to expand...

However, you might buy a Lamborghini to plow them...



“Let me make cars. You stick to making tractors.” - Enzo Ferrari