Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

firstimpulse wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

firstimpulse wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

That's a pretty aircraft, first, but stealthy it isn't: too many edges. A stealthy A-10 would probably look more like a B-2.

Probably true. It's just a fictional CAS craft from a video game I play... But it does have two GAU-8s... Cool

And I'm not a proponent of a stealth A-10. What's wrong with the B-2 with the SDBs and the F-35 giving targeting?

Numbers. The sortie generation for a Beak loaded with SDBs is going to be awful at best. The labor required to load each bomb will not be pretty, and with only 19 or so combat-coded jets...

Well, let's just say that there will be better options. I hope and pray for a long-range VLO heavy-class fighter/stealthy Aardvark that can also perform CAS.

Good point... but what about the masses of cruise missiles?

Or cruise missiles that deliver masses of SDBs?

F-16.net Sponsor

I have long feared the space-dog. Our defences will be useless.

southernphantom wrote:

Just a note; there are more workable F-4s at Davis-Monthan than A-10s. Although the Warthog production tooling is allegedly stored out there.

I dont think that will be true for long. A lot of additional A-10s are about to be retired and and they have finished regenerating Phantoms for the QF-4 program. The best Phantoms have been shot down.

Spooky wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

Just a note; there are more workable F-4s at Davis-Monthan than A-10s. Although the Warthog production tooling is allegedly stored out there.

I dont think that will be true for long. A lot of additional A-10s are about to be retired and and they have finished regenerating Phantoms for the QF-4 program. The best Phantoms have been shot down.

Possibly. A lot of the A-10s over there have had their wings removed to SLEP other aircraft. Additionally, not all of the BRAC 2012 recommendations will necessarily be followed (and many of those units will receive F-35A).

Call me crazy, but I still see a role for F-4s in an emergency- especially RF-4Cs.

Anyone know anything about the new "Scorpion" system being field tested in A-10 helmets? See http://www.defencetalk.com/reserve-a-10 ... pac-43994/ Quote,"Scorpion system, which is integrated into the pilot’s current helmet, said Lt. Col. Tom McNurlin. According to McNurlin, the new helmet system takes all the information in the aircraft and positions it on the ground so that each pilot can look at a heads-up display and know exactly where the targets are positioned on the ground without ever losing visual contact of these targets."

Read more: http://www.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123311538

It appears the system works primarily because the boats are marginally slower than the A-10. Laughing

southernphantom wrote:

Call me crazy, but I still see a role for F-4s in an emergency- especially RF-4Cs.

I dont know, the best RF-4C, F-4E, and F-4G have already been converted to drones with just a few QRF-4C left waiting their turn to be shot down. That program is winding down.

Spooky wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

Call me crazy, but I still see a role for F-4s in an emergency- especially RF-4Cs.

I dont know, the best RF-4C, F-4E, and F-4G have already been converted to drones with just a few QRF-4C left waiting their turn to be shot down. That program is winding down.

Any airframe in reserve in good quality is an asset. Period. There were only ever a handful of QF-4Es, anyway.

CAS solutions need to move beyond airframe type discussions.
The primary problem with CAS isn't from the air down, it is from the ground up.

Ground troops know when they are under fire they just often cannot tell where from.
When friendly CAS aircraft arrive on station too much time is consumed trying to relay the positions of good guys and bad guys so that decisions about air support regarding ordinance and release trajectory can even begin.

Ground forces need to be the first link in solving this issue of geo-locating the bad guys and I think that they are starting to move in that direction.
Any CAS aircraft is capable of destroying a target rapidly if they just have coordinates.
Getting humans out of the role of trying to 'describe' over radio airwaves where the incoming fire is coming from is a key requirement.

I also agree - that terrible rain of space dogs won't help anything when it begins.

On the topic of the A-10, does anyone know if the Navy ever looked into a navalized version for the Marines?

Quote:

count to 10
On the topic of the A-10, does anyone know if the Navy ever looked into a navalized version for the Marines?

Highly doubt it. The Marines had the OV-10 for that (which is not the same as an A-10, but still). Fairchild-Republic did try extremely hard to sell A-10 Thunderbolt II's to our European allies (which you would think would be a slam dunk with the then Soviet Union thousands of main battle tanks on the other side of the "iron curtain") to no avail. I know of a two seater night adverse weather variant - never moved past the prototype, the airframe is acting as a gate guard somewhere. Never heard of a naval version of the A-10.

How's this:

An A-10 being converted for Storm Chasing duties, due to fly in 2013.

http://www.joss.ucar.edu/events/2012/lo ... onsson.pdf

http://www.cirpas.org/a10spa.html

FlightDreamz wrote:

Quote:

count to 10
On the topic of the A-10, does anyone know if the Navy ever looked into a navalized version for the Marines?

Highly doubt it. The Marines had the OV-10 for that (which is not the same as an A-10, but still). Fairchild-Republic did try extremely hard to sell A-10 Thunderbolt II's to our European allies (which you would think would be a slam dunk with the then Soviet Union thousands of main battle tanks on the other side of the "iron curtain") to no avail. I know of a two seater night adverse weather variant - never moved past the prototype, the airframe is acting as a gate guard somewhere. Never heard of a naval version of the A-10.

Okay, now that I've looked that plane up, why didn't the Air Force just use a version of the Bronco instead of developing the A-10?

count_to_10 wrote:

FlightDreamz wrote:

Quote:

count to 10
On the topic of the A-10, does anyone know if the Navy ever looked into a navalized version for the Marines?

Highly doubt it. The Marines had the OV-10 for that (which is not the same as an A-10, but still). Fairchild-Republic did try extremely hard to sell A-10 Thunderbolt II's to our European allies (which you would think would be a slam dunk with the then Soviet Union thousands of main battle tanks on the other side of the "iron curtain") to no avail. I know of a two seater night adverse weather variant - never moved past the prototype, the airframe is acting as a gate guard somewhere. Never heard of a naval version of the A-10.

Okay, now that I've looked that plane up, why didn't the Air Force just use a version of the Bronco instead of developing the A-10?

Survivability. The OV-10 just doesn't have it. Its losses in Desert Storm weren't good at all. Its payload is also deficient relative to the Warthog, as is its kinematic performance (the Bronco was notoriously underpowered.

southernphantom wrote:

Survivability. The OV-10 just doesn't have it. Its losses in Desert Storm weren't good at all. Its payload is also deficient relative to the Warthog, as is its kinematic performance (the Bronco was notoriously underpowered.

Most of that could probably have been fixed by upgrading the engines, extending the wings, and adding armor. Actually, it looks like Boeing plans on upgrading it to modern technology.