Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?

About time that the A-10 got the Small Diameter Bomb added to its arsenal of weapons. :cool:
 
If the Air Farce hates it so much-give it to the Army or Ukraine.
 
This is obviously a very abbreviated way to summarize serious events but almost every “we were outmanned and outgunned” story of the last 20+ years has a happy ending (relatively speaking) when the FAC arrives and saves the day.
 
OK. I guess it's an armed stealthy cargo/tanker? Something like an AC-130U with jets, guns and huns...
 
More proof as the adage goes 'War is to important to be left up to soldiers (in this case airmen).

Until the AF has a clue/plan for CAS and $ more for their replacement plan the A-10 should stay.
A 57' wing span is hella bomb truck for stand in and stand off missiles. Likewise, DEW pods can well manage non-permissive environments even to he point where A-10 could be tasked as a primary SEAD platform.

Naysayers are Thomson Twining it.. "Lies, Lies Lies, yeah".
 
Foo Fighter said:
Considering the cost of new wings, why not install newer engines too?
Click to expand...
What with?

The USAF doesn't like the TF34 engine because it's unique so they also have to pay for 100% of the maintenance training and spare parts. And all of that gets wrapped up into the A-10 specific part of the operational budget.

Fair enough, nobody likes that.

But what engine would you use to replace it? You cannot use an engine too much heavier due to weight and balance issues, it needs to be within a couple hundred lbs. You also need to use a turbofan that is in current use with the US military, to take away that complaint from the USAF. Ideally more than just the USAF, so that they can share the cost of the schools with another service.

A TF34 weighs 1500lbs. A CFM56-7B as used in the P8 Poseidon weighs almost 5400lbs, way too heavy. The RR BR700 as used in the B52 reengining weighs 3600lbs.

What engine in use with the US military weighs less than 1700lbs and generates more than 9500lbs thrust?
 
GTX said:
Well worth the watch:

View: https://youtu.be/jBzNKS-1ztU
Click to expand...
Setting aside the “popular zeitgeist”, pseudo intellectual beard, glasses, hand gesturing and funny accent, buying into his vehicle kill and attrition facts seem fraught, as the A-10 has always faced cultural bias. Pro f-35 commentators pick their facts. Every tank hit by a 30mm in the frontal glacis will also be likely hit elsewhere on the vehicle thus disabling the vehicle, for instance. Comparing a bomb’s damage to an autocannon rd’s destructive power is riduleous on its face.

The A-10 has not received the upgrades necessary to enhance the best night, all weather, low altitude infiltration flight and automated accuracy technology, because of AF cultural bias against. Unfortunately much of the AF commentary etc. can not be trusted. Available wide area RSTA threat geolocations (23mm or higher) so safe A-10 attack routes can be easily be calculated.

The 30mm cannon is a straffing psychological weapon to prompt tank crews to unas… their vehicles and adversary overruns of US units detered. Troops testimony on how there unit’s lives were saved by the sound of A-10 approaching can be trusted.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
What with?

The USAF doesn't like the TF34 engine because it's unique so they also have to pay for 100% of the maintenance training and spare parts. And all of that gets wrapped up into the A-10 specific part of the operational budget.

Fair enough, nobody likes that.

But what engine would you use to replace it? You cannot use an engine too much heavier due to weight and balance issues, it needs to be within a couple hundred lbs. You also need to use a turbofan that is in current use with the US military, to take away that complaint from the USAF. Ideally more than just the USAF, so that they can share the cost of the schools with another service.

A TF34 weighs 1500lbs. A CFM56-7B as used in the P8 Poseidon weighs almost 5400lbs, way too heavy. The RR BR700 as used in the B52 reengining weighs 3600lbs.

What engine in use with the US military weighs less than 1700lbs and generates more than 9500lbs thrust?
Click to expand...
The RR AE 3007 turbofan weighs in the circa 1600lb range, is used by the US military for a number of drones and aircraft and the late ceramic enhanced bigger fan models can develop between 10 to 12,000lb thrust,
 
Scott Kenny said:
What with?

The USAF doesn't like the TF34 engine because it's unique so they also have to pay for 100% of the maintenance training and spare parts. And all of that gets wrapped up into the A-10 specific part of the operational budget.

Fair enough, nobody likes that.

But what engine would you use to replace it? You cannot use an engine too much heavier due to weight and balance issues, it needs to be within a couple hundred lbs. You also need to use a turbofan that is in current use with the US military, to take away that complaint from the USAF. Ideally more than just the USAF, so that they can share the cost of the schools with another service.

A TF34 weighs 1500lbs. A CFM56-7B as used in the P8 Poseidon weighs almost 5400lbs, way too heavy. The RR BR700 as used in the B52 reengining weighs 3600lbs.

What engine in use with the US military weighs less than 1700lbs and generates more than 9500lbs thrust?
Click to expand...
TF34 is part of the CF34 family of engines. GE has proposed a number of upgrades over the years. TF34s in the A-10 might be unique to the US military once the S-3 retired, but the engines in it's family are widely used commercially.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fairchild-a-10-projects.160/page-4#post-374259
 
apparition13 said:
TF34 is part of the CF34 family of engines. GE has proposed a number of upgrades over the years. TF34s in the A-10 might be unique to the US military once the S-3 retired, but the engines in it's family are widely used commercially.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fairchild-a-10-projects.160/page-4#post-374259
Click to expand...
Right.

But unless there's other engines in the DOD inventory that use that engine, the USAF will whine about having to support the entire cost of the engines themselves, and use that as an excuse to cut the A-10s (or a plane intended to replace the A-10).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right.

But unless there's other engines in the DOD inventory that use that engine, the USAF will whine about having to support the entire cost of the engines themselves, and use that as an excuse to cut the A-10s (or a plane intended to replace the A-10).
Click to expand...
That's just thrashing about for justifications to get rid of a plane they've never wanted. They have aircraft with single digit inventory numbers that they have to support and they don't complain about that.
 
apparition13 said:
That's just thrashing about for justifications to get rid of a plane they've never wanted.
Click to expand...
Right, but eliminating those items the USAF can complain about will force them to say the quiet part out loud, that they do not want to support the US Army. And then you can fire Generals until the message is received that Everyone Works Together.

Though I honestly expect that the FVL-Apache-replacement will also end up replacing the A-10, so the Army has control over their CAS like they always should have had.
Basically the Army buys another several hundred of their FVL-Apache-replacements, over and above 1:1 replacement of all the Apaches in inventory. Army has some 800 Apaches in service, and the USAF has ~260 A-10s still in service out of a total of some 716 total built. I'm proposing the Army buy 1100-1500 FVL-Apache-replacements in total.​


apparition13 said:
They have aircraft with single digit inventory numbers that they have to support and they don't complain about that.
Click to expand...
Usually because those are supporting Stratcom or the POTUS. VC25s are a prestige thing. It doesn't matter how much those cost, you must have them. FFS, even Mexico has a Presidential aircraft, in the late 1990s it was a 757 and they otherwise had no money then.

Stratcom planes like the TACAMO and NEACP are also "cost is no object" items.

So are the unique recon platforms like Global Hawks and U2s.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom