Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

Any ideas as to what the total flight hours that remain for the A-10s are? Just a thought if they are going to be transferred to the Jordanian airforce.
 
topspeed3 said:
Ok. I tought there was a war.
Click to expand...
That's the point, yes.

The A-10 is not a very survivable aircraft for a war with as much AA as this one. It wasn't a very survivable aircraft fourty years ago. Things have not gotten better.

It's good for moving dirt against dirt farmers.
 
Unfortunately, I think the time the A-10s could have made a big difference in Ukraine is long past. They might occasionally get lucky at catching the Russians off guard now, but I don't the losses trying to find those opportunities would be worth it.
 
Big question for me is how much...

Electronical upgrades to fit all the A2G weapon systems they will need.

Cause the A10 has a 16k payload with the center stations having 4k limits.

It will make for cheap and effect ALCM archer and decoy deployer. It would open up a whole lot of stand off weapons to give Ukraine as well.

To say nothing of loading up with 6 gunpods and go Shabed hunting like that ww2 Yak.
 
Firefinder said:
Big question for me is how much...

Electronical upgrades to fit all the A2G weapon systems they will need.

Cause the A10 has a 16k payload with the center stations having 4k limits.

It will make for cheap and effect ALCM archer and decoy deployer. It would open up a whole lot of stand off weapons to give Ukraine as well.

To say nothing of loading up with 6 gunpods and go Shabed hunting like that ww2 Yak.
Click to expand...
Yes Shahed hunting as the tank hunting needs a slow flying capabilities in the battlefield.
 
topspeed3 said:
Yes Shahed hunting as the tank hunting needs a slow flying capabilities in the battlefield.
Click to expand...
The gun on the A-10 doesn't work great against aerial targets because there is no radar gun sight. Taking out Shahed with a 30mm cannon would also endanger anyone or thing that happens to be in the line of sight or near where the rounds fall. For every round that hits a drone, a few dozen grenade-sized explosions will result on the ground and heaven help anyone near that.
Firefinder said:
Big question for me is how much...

Electronical upgrades to fit all the A2G weapon systems they will need.

Cause the A10 has a 16k payload with the center stations having 4k limits.

It will make for cheap and effect ALCM archer and decoy deployer. It would open up a whole lot of stand off weapons to give Ukraine as well.

To say nothing of loading up with 6 gunpods and go Shabed hunting like that ww2 Yak.
Click to expand...
So ultimately it would only be used for things an F-16 can do, lobbing glide bombs, AASMs, ALCMs (assuming they give Ukraine SLAM-ERs of JASSM-As) and MALDs, and hunting drones.

Rampage would be an interesting missile to supply Ukraine with.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
It can do it longer ;)
Click to expand...
Can it? Does it need to? The F-16 has better kinematics for lobbing glide bombs and has significantly better ability to defend itself from aerial threats near the front line. Can an A-10 carry JASSMs? Sure they could be DIY'd on but they're already qualified for the F-16 as are SLAM-ERs.
 
Forest Green said:
Can it? Does it need to? The F-16 has better kinematics for lobbing glide bombs and has significantly better ability to defend itself from aerial threats near the front line. Can an A-10 carry JASSMs? Sure they could be DIY'd on but they're already qualified for the F-16 as are SLAM-ERs.
Click to expand...
The A10 does have better range and payload limits then the F16 so it can carry more and do fun off board shooting basically.

Generally speaking a third of tge F16 payload is taken up by fuel tanks something that A10 does not need for the same payload and range.

By splitting the jobs it will free up the F16s for work closer to the lines more often while the A10 is playing missile truck. Plus the A10 generally needs less maintance then the F16s, so using them as trucks will save time there.

Plus there are parts of the lines that are uncovered by Russian ADA except for the guns, so the A10 can still do its CAS work occasionally
 
Firefinder said:
The A10 does have better range and payload limits then the F16 so it can carry more and do fun off board shooting basically.

Generally speaking a third of tge F16 payload is taken up by fuel tanks something that A10 does not need for the same payload and range.

By splitting the jobs it will free up the F16s for work closer to the lines more often while the A10 is playing missile truck. Plus the A10 generally needs less maintance then the F16s, so using them as trucks will save time there.

Plus there are parts of the lines that are uncovered by Russian ADA except for the guns, so the A10 can still do its CAS work occasionally
Click to expand...
With the right upgrades I think you could make the A-10 a decent missile truck with a large payload. Something like the JAGM-F with the new tri-mode seeker would probably be pretty ideal for that. I love the AGM-65 Maverick but only 6 can be carried and it's a bit dated these days.

There is a lot to be said for the advantages an F-16 has in comparison, but it would give the A-10 some utility against opponents with air defenses that would normally render it pretty useless. Maybe if Ukraine had many more pilots and crew to utilize and also had all of the fighters, they needed to gain air-supremacy and perform local SEAD.

But I don't think any more A-10 upgrades are forthcoming. As much as I hate to see it, it's probably the end of the line for the old bird before this decade is done.
 
Forest Green said:
The gun on the A-10 doesn't work great against aerial targets because there is no radar gun sight. Taking out Shahed with a 30mm cannon would also endanger anyone or thing that happens to be in the line of sight or near where the rounds fall. For every round that hits a drone, a few dozen grenade-sized explosions will result on the ground and heaven help anyone near that.

So ultimately it would only be used for things an F-16 can do, lobbing glide bombs, AASMs, ALCMs (assuming they give Ukraine SLAM-ERs of JASSM-As) and MALDs, and hunting drones.

Rampage would be an interesting missile to supply Ukraine with.
Click to expand...
Well you can add a 4 huge rotary shotguns on the wings for drones.

Definitely cheaper than an AMRAAM.
 
Honestly the better gun pod be in 30mmx 118.

Allows you to use the US Army new proxy fuse rounds for that caliber.
 
And what about a GAU-8 30mm shell adapted with a canister filled with flechette? Drones would fall shred in pieces.

Flechette munitions for small arms include single and multiple flechette projectiles for use in the M16 rifle, CAWS (close assault weapons system), and 12 gauge shotgun. Flechette munitions for antipersonnel use are available for the 90mm M67 recoilless rifle, 106mm M40A2 recoilless rifle, 105mm M101A1/M102 howitzer, 2.75 in. FFAR (folding fin aircraft rocket), and the 70mm hydra70 FFAR.

A flechette sabot with 20 of the 8 grain flechettes fired at 2250 fps. has a muzzle kinetic energy of 90.4 ft. lbf. individually, and 1808 ft. lbf. combined. At the average combat engaugement range of 100 meters the flechettes will have kinetic energy of 62.77 ft. lbf. individually, and 1255.4 ft. lbf. combined. Approximate energy values deived from the formula: 1/2*(M*V2/32), mass in pounds times velocity squared divided by acceleration of gravity times one half.
Click to expand...


Idem for ground personnels that could make some good use of recoilless rifle with munitions filled with flechette to bring down drones (better range than a shotgun).

iu

M40

iu

M67
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
And what about a GAU-8 30mm shell adapted with a canister filled with flechette? Drones would fall shred in pieces.




Idem for ground personnels that could make some good use of recoilless rifle with munitions filled with flechette to bring down drones (better range than a shotgun).

iu

M40

iu

M67
Click to expand...
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/170hxb5/20_june_1974_a_us_army_f51_mustang_experimenting
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/170hxb5/20_june_1974_a_us_army_f51_mustang_experimenting/
 
Not sure if this has been asked before, but apologise if it has, if the cold war had continued to this day what do people thing would have begun replacing the A-10s now ? A new build/rebuild or something completely different (or F-35( ?
 
If the Cold War had continued beyond 1990 then the A-10 would have been replaced with a new build as the JSF (JAST as it then was) was still in development.
 
madhon said:
Not sure if this has been asked before, but apologise if it has, if the cold war had continued to this day what do people thing would have begun replacing the A-10s now ? A new build/rebuild or something completely different (or F-35( ?
Click to expand...
For various reasons they figured the A-10 would be unsurvivable against improving Soviet air defenses. It probably would have been supplemented by some variant of the F-16 or a production variant of the YA-7F. While the USAF had LTV build the prototypes and test them, I think the brass was firmly in the F-16 camp because it was multi-role, even though I'm guessing the A-7F would have been a better attack aircraft.

I personally think improvements to missiles and sensors could have given the A-10 some new lease on life but either way production of further airframes was unlikely. Maybe some would linger on in reserve/ANG service until the 'next-generation' F-16 replacement started being introduced. This would have been related to one of the numerous programs that preceded JAST/JSF, but it's hard to say what the exact outcome might have been. It could have ended up quite similar to the JSF, or be like CALF which had no plans for a Navy CATOBAR variant. Or be strictly an F-16 replacement which was the original MRF program goal.
 
Last edited:
A bit has been written about that 30mm gun pod on the F-16 and its poor showing in Desert Storm. It seems clear that the necessary software for the ballistics computer wasn't on those F-16s so no functional CCIP on the HUD. That could have been resolved, but I've no idea just how much could have been done to correct issues with recoil and just how rigid/stable the gun pod was.

Even with fixes I doubt it would ever be very suitable for taking out MBTs as the GAU-8 on the A-10 could in the right conditions. The much faster speed and less rounds per minute going downrange means less of a chance for a kill. The A-16 may have been given some armor but that would have been minimal compared to an A-10, so stuff like 12.7mm MG return fire might ruin your day if you catch a few unlucky hits. On the positive side I'm sure the gun pod would still have been able shred APCs and other light armor (plus soft targets) if those aforementioned issues were corrected.

The utility of the 30mm cannon against MBTs has always been somewhat limited in practice as the only way you'd knock out those tanks with a high degree of certainty is to approach them from behind. You could penetrate much of the side hull on many but from the T-62 onwards the side turret was often too thick.
 
FighterJock said:
If the Cold War had continued beyond 1990 then the A-10 would have been replaced with a new build as the JSF (JAST as it then was) was still in development.
Click to expand...

If the Cold War had, say, lasted another five years (Not impossible) the A-10 would probably been replaced by the A-7F.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom