"Arsenal Plane" Concepts

As LM was quick to point out 6th gen is in the software not the airframe. Bombtrucks are the future so consider whatever hardware enhancements necessary or stay at 28. Two planes w/ 56 is .5 a division thus the armored offensive is bomb stopped.
 
Sorry to be a pedant but IMHO to fit the definition of an arsenal plane it has to be a heavy bomber sized, or very near to it, aircraft with A2A capability.

A B-52 that can carry ALCMs gets updated to carry LRSOs doesn’t magically become an arsenal plane. A heavy bomber build for that purpose that gets updated to drop other bombs is an updated bomber. A fighter sized aircraft is a fighter-bomber.

I guess you could include a smaller aircraft that was built to solely drop bombs adding air to air, a regional arsenal plane, sort of (probably still better called a fighter-bomber.

Just a personal opinion that keeps the concept clearer in my mind.
 
jsport said:
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/a10-warthogs-middle-east-houthis/
Glade to hear someone actually looked at the previous article, the bomb trucks require hardpoints or an internal bay. Hog has hangers and 250s r light.

The hogs practice gunning & thumping a couple miles from here highlights the Hog's continued presence.
Click to expand...

Oooo, eventually several A-10s were deployed. Are we saved yet? Has anyone reported that they actually bombed anything yet?
 
jsport said:
As LM was quick to point out 6th gen is in the software not the airframe. Bombtrucks are the future so consider whatever hardware enhancements necessary or stay at 28. Two planes w/ 56 is .5 a division thus the armored offensive is bomb stopped.
Click to expand...

6th gen is marketing and software is limited by the computer hardware it is run on - see F-35 tech refresh as a stumbling block to blk 4.

If software/processing is your argument, I would be surprised if the entire A-10 fleet had the processing power of a single TF F-35 aircraft. But sure, slap some software patches on that big dick 30 mm like it was viagra for Hugh Hef.
 
jsport said:
Two planes w/ 56 is .5 a division thus the armored offensive is bomb stopped.
Click to expand...
56 weapons/targets is not half a division.

A division is typically 9-10 manoeuvre battalions, each with around 50-70 AFVs.
 
DWG said:
56 weapons/targets is not half a division.

A division is typically 9-10 manoeuvre battalions, each with around 50-70 AFVs.
Click to expand...
No one cares about afvs. Tanks for memory. Modern realistic deployments of divisions lose 50 tanks the initiative is over.
 
jsport said:
No one cares about afvs.
Click to expand...
So how come everyone is buying them? Major 4-nation CV-90 buy announced just last week, Boxer, Redback, Lynx and Puma selling like hotcakes, XM-30 to come. The professional militaries seem to care rather a lot about AFVs.
 
DWG said:
So how come everyone is buying them? Major 4-nation CV-90 buy announced just last week, Boxer, Redback, Lynx and Puma selling like hotcakes, XM-30 to come. The professional militaries seem to care rather a lot about AFVs.
Click to expand...

AFV is Armored Fighting Vehicle. That includes Tanks, IFVs, and a host of other vehicles.
 
TomS said:
AFV is Armored Fighting Vehicle. That includes Tanks, IFVs, and a host of other vehicles.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I was trying to keep it simple by pointing out one major omission at a time.
 
Statement stands, tanks would be targeted and would stifle operational initiative. this has become tedious.
 
Josh_TN said:
Houthi And The Blowfish
Click to expand...
Because Houthi is the biggest Iran proxy and has the best of stuff, duh. They have the weird loitering MANPADS that none professional military has fielded any equivalent to yet. Nor is the USN actually committed to a cleansing anywhere close to what was seen in ODS. So the comparison is moot to begin with.
 
TomcatViP said:
Well if she will get a new model ident (J), why not opting for a new name: the Superforeverstress(ed)?!
Click to expand...
No, we all know that the proper name for the air-to-air capable B52 is Megafortress. Thank you Dale Brown.



seruriermarshal said:
Can they use Boeing 737 ?
Click to expand...
No. Rapid Dragon needs a rear cargo door to roll out the back. 737s don't have a rear door like that, and can't really have one added, either.



eagle said:
How?
That would be 10 BRU-61 racks. As noted in the article, 4 racks is the maximum currently i.e. 16 SDBs.
Stations 3 and 9 (the "Maverick stations", right outside the main gear) could support another pair.
But that's it, stations 1, 2, 10, 11 don't support multiple racks.
In theory, a single bomb could be carried there for a maximum of 28 bombs.
Click to expand...
I've seen a dual-Sidewinder rack on either Station 1 or 11, and the other one is carrying an ECM pod, basically all the time. So even if they could carry the weight of a BRU-61, I don't think any pilot would want to carry there.

So we'd only be adding Stations 2 and 10. What's the weight limits on Stations 2 and 10, 2000lbs? If it is 2000lbs, then they could carry a loaded BRU-61.

Is there enough space to add a BRU-61 to the centerline pylon (what is that, station 6?) if there's also BRU-61s on the stations at the edge of the fuselage (5 and 7?)?

If stations 2 and 10 have the weight capacity, an A-10 could carry 8x or 9x BRU-61s for 32x or 36x SDBs.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Because Houthi is the biggest Iran proxy and has the best of stuff, duh. They have the weird loitering MANPADS that none professional military has fielded any equivalent to yet. Nor is the USN actually committed to a cleansing anywhere close to what was seen in ODS. So the comparison is moot to begin with.
Click to expand...

If a non government group supplied by Iran can operate medium range SAMs with enough skill that they are still a threat six weeks later, I think we can assume that is the new normal for most anyone the U.S. would face and turn the page on the A-10.
 
A-10 is not adapted to seek targets alone far past the FLOT (something that most airframe have to do in Yemen).
On the contrary, I see the A-10 payload capacity as a good arsenal plane orbitting closer to the front line while able to operate according to ACE.

Regarding Houti apparent resilience, those that have still in memory Rolling Thunder and alikes in Vietnam would say that this is not surprising. Crippling something that does not need a structured network and solid infrastructure to pursue its fight is like attempting a spinal surgery on an invertebrate...
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
A-10 is not adapted to seek targets alone far past the FLOT (something that most airframe have to do in Yemen).
On the contrary, I see the A-10 payload capacity as a good arsenal plane orbitting closer to the front line while able to operate according to ACE.

Regarding Houti apparent resilience, those that have still in memory Rolling Thunder and alikes in Vietnam would say that this is not surprising. Crippling something that does not need a structured network and solid infrastructure to pursue its fight is like attempting a spinal surgery on an invertebrate...
Click to expand...

What exactly would these A-10s be launching, and how would target information be transferred to them?

As for Yemen, yes it was predictable. The current administration thought the previous administration was just incapable of anything, when in fact it turns out suppressing an enemy that operates with almost no infrastructure is in fact hard after all, and the second attempt is not any better thought out, just bigger.
 
I don´t see them as being that bad. There is numerous traces that they had this in mind putting in place their strategy. The MQ-9 tally is simply a consequence of the asymmetry in logistics, and a part only of one aspect of that fight (contest and punish).
It takes a lot of birds and orbits to track a mule in the desert. The rejoicing point is that no blood is spilled doing so. We can only remember the gamut of Voodoo, RF-4, Vigilante and RF-8 pilots that went down during their missions in Vietnam.

A-10 launching sdb:

1746112546622.png


View: https://youtu.be/lQT-1e5hZns&t=3m
 
Last edited:
I don’t think there’s any chance of A-10s getting into SDB range of peer competitors. This is nothing a C-130 could not do at lower cost and higher volume with more loiter time.
 
Josh_TN said:
I don’t think there’s any chance of A-10s getting into SDB range of peer competitors.
Click to expand...
Why?
Nap of the Earth flight to flot and back. Though SDB itself is not a good weapon for the job, spear is better choice due to booster.
 
Ainen said:
Why?
Nap of the Earth flight to flot and back. Though SDB itself is not a good weapon for the job, spear is better choice due to booster.
Click to expand...

I think you answered your own question? It is a relatively short ranged weapon dependent on high altitude for range.

In the short term, I think A-10s are only useful as MALD dispensers. And again, how is this more useful than C-130s?
 
Time to effect can be very short. In the video above you can see that multiple strike are done with the aircraft taking cover b/w them. A C-130 would have had to loiter at alt to offer the same effect, hence at quite some range that its weapons would have to cover themselves, increasing cost, the burden on logistic and endangering troops with an offset in reaction time.

CAS is Times sensitive.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Time to effect can be very short. In the video above you can see that multiple strike are done with the aircraft taking cover b/w them. A C-130 would have had to loiter at alt to offer the same effect, hence at quite some range that its weapons would have to cover themselves, increasing cost, the burden on logistic and endangering troops with an offset in reaction time.
Click to expand...

Ok, I am not addressing any videos ever, because videos are, from my unacceptable 80s vernacular, for retards.

Secondly, we are on the cusp of having 500# 500 mile munitions that can be dropped from any cargo aircraft ever, from C-130 to Osprey. So what does A-10 bring as a bomb truck in that context?
 
You are forgetting the key points here aside from the weapon itself. A10's purpose is support and ground pounder... meaning it's gonna unload lots of stuff during the course of a day let alone an intense war lasting years. So the weapon is preferably cheap. Today, we can't get around putting sensors & guidance on them. So at minimun SDB is what fits the bill. And yes you can't get around "tossing" them. Now the question is how far does it need to be able to go ballistically. This can be calculated... The A10/F15EX are fast so we got to add at least 1 mile on top of the typical stand-off range for the helicopters.

Anyhow, I see another neat option.
https://www.northropgrumman.com/wha...ded-projectiles-and-precision-weapons/hatchetBut this thing is so small ... I don't see how it's being mounted. Being this light it might be feasible to slap a typical cheap hoppy rocket motor on the back to give it the needed extra kick. 2 for just $32.99 for example.
https://estesrockets.com/products/f15-6-engines
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
Spear 5 or derivations thereof.
Click to expand...
That's kinda expensive and rare to just bomb the frontline.
Josh_TN said:
I think you answered your own question? It is a relatively short ranged weapon dependent on high altitude for range.
Click to expand...
Enemy frontline isn't terribly far though. Weapon flying further than manpad(hard capped by human carrying capacity) + some more to reach behind no man's land is enough for cas aircraft.
 
Ainen said:
Enemy frontline isn't terribly far though. Weapon flying further than manpad(hard capped by human carrying capacity) + some more to reach behind no man's land is enough for cas aircraft.
Click to expand...
Exactly. 15, maybe 20km if someone gets fancy with the rocket and makes a hit-to-kill MANPADS.

And SDB is honestly kinda big boom for the job of Tank Plinking, IMO.
 
Ainen said:
That's kinda expensive and rare to just bomb the frontline.

Enemy frontline isn't terribly far though. Weapon flying further than manpad(hard capped by human carrying capacity) + some more to reach behind no man's land is enough for cas aircraft.
Click to expand...
The current theatre points out deep BAI is becoming the new CAS. CAS planes need to hit many deep logistics nodes as they do frontline vehicles. The SPEAR series currently are AT size form factors so if a deep tgt missile can be roughly the same form factor all bases can be covered.

Agree Stormbreaker/SDB is bit large to
plink, but survivability requires the SPEAR/Brimstone/Hellfire/JACM standoff to at low altitude, safely tank plink.
 
jsport said:
The current theatre points out deep BAI is becoming the new CAS. CAS planes need to hit many deep logistics nodes as they do frontline vehicles. The SPEAR series currently are AT size form factors so if a deep tgt missile can be roughly the same form factor all bases can be covered.
Click to expand...
In general, you either don't get to fly high enough to get LOS on the rear (but still can afford to come relatively close), or some range left or right isn't a deadly issue since you can afford to engage from medium altitude.

Powered hunter-killer munitions solve (1), but for now there's host of problems with their availability, jamming resistance/onboard computing and sensor quality.

Also interdiction is still a very distinctive mission from cas, even if it's more important and is performed with same weapons and planes.

Yes, networking made SAMs more deadly at shooting below the horizon. Drones also largely forced SAMs further away from frontlines, attrition rate is unsustainable. Depth of drone denial zone is also steadily growing.
 
Ainen said:
In general, you either don't get to fly high enough to get LOS on the rear (but still can afford to come relatively close), or some range left or right isn't a deadly issue since you can afford to engage from medium altitude.
Click to expand...
Offboard tgting is an evolving thing for AT missiles w/ multi-sensors like Stormbreaker so N/BLOS is the future. Certainly SPEAR 3 is distance maker. Thus a tactical missiles must accomplish BAI & CAS. In the future, much as on the current front, few tgts are presented so going deeper to hit both CAS & BAI tgts is a necessity.
Ainen said:
Powered hunter-killer munitions solve (1), but for now there's host of problems with their availability, jamming resistance/onboard computing and sensor quality.
Click to expand...
Availability is and will remain an issue, sure.
Ainen said:
Also interdiction is still a very distinctive mission from cas, even if it's more important and is performed with same weapons and planes.
Click to expand...
Cdrs who insist and continue to plan this way should be fired. Cover the close but quickly afford maximum effect...close & interdict simultaneous.
Ainen said:
Yes, networking made SAMs more deadly at shooting below the horizon. Drones also largely forced SAMs further away from frontlines, attrition rate is unsustainable. Depth of drone denial zone is also steadily growing.
Click to expand...
AFRL Persistent Area Dominance (PAD) drone/munition (always a preach point) swarm concept which was before Rapid Dragon were both launched from a herky ("low density asset") therefore limited and so only for some CAS/BAI-SEAD

Close bombtrucks launching deep & close from below the horizon can survive w/o much SEAD and r more plentiful than herky.

just like the FPVs battle, FPVs cant do everything thus still need mortars & artillery.

Depth of drone denial, which becomes C2W IMO, is a latest 'ting'. The safest means of delivering many drone is from an aircraft like the A-10.
 
Josh_TN said:
Secondly, we are on the cusp of having 500# 500 mile munitions that can be dropped from any cargo aircraft ever, from C-130 to Osprey. So what does A-10 bring as a bomb truck in that context?
Click to expand...

Immediacy.
 
Josh_TN said:
In what sense?
Click to expand...
munition dropped from C-130 on external cueing will arrive either from cruise (which will take up to 1.5 hrs), or from some loiter (assuming steady loss of munitions and/or additional complications to recover them from designated retrival zone). Still there will be delay.

1.5 hrs may be late for a pinned down infantry section with mortar with FPVs zeroing in.

If external feed will get interrupted or won't be available (kill chain disruption) - munition won't engage at all. All that - for a massively higher price, and for a lot of parasitic weight per warhead weight(and number) delivered.

Stand in munitions allows to engage targets directly, as soon as they're found. That includes targets found suddenly for the shooter.
 
I personally doubt the A-10s survivability at ranges where a stand in weapon could be used against most any opponent.
 
It is admirable folks are attempting to learn and discuss, but maybe better research.
Herkys & Osprey were designed and are already over-tasked for other battlespace purposes not munitions delivery.
It is an expensive and dangerous to use to utilize these low density assets for this purpose when other craft are tasked and designed for CAS/BAI.

DEW will mature toward TACAIR protection as it has been.
 
jsport said:
It is admirable folks are attempting to learn and discuss, but maybe better research.
Herkys & Osprey were designed and are already over-tasked for other battlespace purposes not munitions delivery.
It is an expensive and dangerous to use to utilize these low density assets for this purpose when other craft are tasked and designed for CAS/BAI.

DEW will mature toward TACAIR protection as it has been.
Click to expand...

There are far more C-130s in USAF than A-10s, and presumably you would need far fewer of them to have the same ordnance load. I’m hardly advocating for the entire force e to be used that way; I was thinking more the MC-130s, since SOCOM is kinda desperate to find a way to be more relevant in a peer conflict anyway. In fact they have tested a mini cruise missile launch already. I also am not convinced the entire airlift force will be heavily committed in a conflict largely devoid of Army involvement, which seems more likely in the Pacific.

I never mentioned MV-22, but at least one USMC spokesman did mention the possibility of throwing LRAMs out the back of tgeir transporot rotorcraft.
 
quellish said:
The amount of time between the nine line and the ordinance being on target.
Click to expand...

The A-10 does not strike me as being sufficiently survivable against SAMs to be using direct attack munitions against anyone with even modest amounts of medium range SAMs; see the Houthi. In any case I thought this discussion was concerning an arsenal plane, not a CAS platform.
 
Josh_TN said:
There are far more C-130s in USAF than A-10s, and presumably you would need far fewer of them to have the same ordnance load. I’m hardly advocating for the entire force e to be used that way; I was thinking more the MC-130s, since SOCOM is kinda desperate to find a way to be more relevant in a peer conflict anyway. In fact they have tested a mini cruise missile launch already. I also am not convinced the entire airlift force will be heavily committed in a conflict largely devoid of Army involvement, which seems more likely in the Pacific.

I never mentioned MV-22, but at least one USMC spokesman did mention the possibility of throwing LRAMs out the back of tgeir transporot rotorcraft.
Click to expand...
Any airlift from all svcs will be quite over tasked in even a medium size contingency...an abiding overall concern.
MC-130 will be used during a HIC, and whatever they dispense will be for direct support of a SOCOM mission.
Likely, discussion of retiring the A-10 will continue till 2029 when it becomes the arsenal plane w/ the most cost effectiveness.
 
Josh_TN said:
The A-10 does not strike me as being sufficiently survivable against SAMs to be using direct attack munitions against anyone with even modest amounts of medium range SAMs; see the Houthi.
Click to expand...

That is a very strange statement to make. The A-10 is one of the most survivable aircraft ever designed. Armored cockpit, redundant systems, widely spaced engines, and many others design choices were made to improve survivability. The A-10 can take a substantial amount of damage and keep flying. Even damage from "medium range SAMs".

Josh_TN said:
In any case I thought this discussion was concerning an arsenal plane, not a CAS platform.
Click to expand...

You asked:

Secondly, we are on the cusp of having 500# 500 mile munitions that can be dropped from any cargo aircraft ever, from C-130 to Osprey. So what does A-10 bring as a bomb truck in that context?
Click to expand...

The "Arsenal Plane" concept envisions employing stand off effects from non-survivable platforms in the first day (or first hour) of a conflict to bring quantity over quality. This is not conceptualized as an enduring mission or being used in support of a dynamic battlefield environment. "Arsenal Plane" is not the host aircraft's day job,

The A-10, as a "bomb truck" is the opposite. It brings immediacy and persistence, every day. That is what it does. The A-10 goes to where the fight is and primarily supports troops on the ground in close proximity to the enemy using weapons such as AGM-65, JDAM, rockets, and guns. This is what the A-10 brings as a "bomb truck".

Standoff weapons are orthogonal to this mission. For example, when the SDB is used for CAS the launching aircraft frequently has to leave the fight to get to the minimum launching distance, then the SDB is launched before a long glide to the target. The time between the nine line and the big boom is not short. By the time the weapon arrives the situation on the ground may change in a way that is unfavorable to employment of the weapon.
 
IMO, what the A-10 needs is 15-20km range missiles. That happen to be supersonic in flight, like Hellfires are.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom