"Is A New A-10 Plane In The Works?" Topic

"The Air Force is beginning to work on how fast, lethal, durable and capable a new "A-10"-like aircraft would need to be in order to provide U.S. military ground troops with effective close-air support for decades to come.

Senior service officials are now exploring "draft requirements" concepts – and evaluating the kind of avionics, engineering, weapons, armor and technical redundancy the aircraft would need, Air Force officials told Scout Warrior.

Many of the core technical attributes and combat advantages of the A-10 will be preserved and expanded upon with the new effort, officials said.

The performance of the A-10 Warthog in the ongoing bombing campaign against ISIS, coupled with the Air Forces' subsequent decision to delay the aircraft's planned retirement – has led the service to begin the process of developing a new, longer-term A-10 type platform…"
See here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Maybe they are starting to understand what an F35 can't do…

Wrong premise from the start, they used the word, "fast" as the first descriptor…

I'm puzzled.

We're always reading about how the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10, wants to get out of the slow-moving CAS business, etc.

I wonder if this is just a study for the sake of keeping some people happy with no money to follow, or a way to ease the path for retiring the A-10.

I'm also puzzled.

I'd disagree that the USAF want to get out of the CAS business.

I would suggest that the main driving force behind getting rid of A-10 was to streamline fleets and save money.

I would suggest that the main driving force behind getting rid of A-10 was to streamline fleets and save money.

Saving money certainly wasn't a factor.

The USAF high-ups wanted to dump the A-10 to justify total adoption of the F-35.

If you check the costs of each plane, plus the costs per hour of operation, etc., you might rethink that comment.

If you check the costs of each plane, plus the costs per hour of operation, etc., you might rethink that comment.

Only works if the A10 can survive in a hostile environment. As I understand it the A10 is not suitable for use in circumstances of quality Air Defence, in which case any ordinary COIN aircraft would do if there is negligible defence. The F35, for all its faults, is supposed to be fit for use against an enemy with quality defences – Russia or China.

Only works if the A10 can survive in a hostile environment. As I understand it the A10 is not suitable for use in circumstances of quality Air Defence, in which case any ordinary COIN aircraft would do if there is negligible defence.

Dead right. The problem was recognized as far back as the late '80s when the Russians started deploying their latest (for then) generation of ADA. Today, the A10 is dead meat in any quality ADA environment.

Against the likes of ISIS, a crop duster with hardpoints could do as well as the A10.

Wrong premise from the start, they used the word, "fast" as the first descriptor…

Wrong. If you want to survive over today's modern battlefield, speed is essential to get you in and out. Low and slow means YOU'RE DEAD.

Depends on your value of "low".

A10 definition of "low" is "gotta pull up to avoid that fence" and "gotta dodge that house."

F35 definition of "low" appears to be "within 1000ft AGL." Which is definitely also defined as within ALL the ADA systems.

A new A10 would be interesting, but Congress appears to be telling the USAF that they won't be able to retire the A10 until it's replacement is at initial operational capability.

Before SEAD you have to be fast *and* stealthy. After SEAD low and slow is fine. The incredible utility, availlablity, cost, flexibility, and coordination of the A-10 in our recent and anticipated conflicts pretty much justifies its existence.

Funny, I was just reading an article that stated that Hans Rudel had input into the A10's design.

If the desire is for a low-and-slow, affordable CAS aircraft, purchase a few hundred Super Tucanos. Keep them in the ANG to take advantage of low costs and experienced aircrew. With proper countermeasures, they're survivable against anything a low-end adversary would have, and save cost and airframe hours on the high-end platforms.

Affirm Southern Phantom

As a matter of interest, what counter-measures can you have against a .50 cal tearing a huge great hole in a wing?

And I'd have thought that IF the desire to gold-plate everything can be avoided (yeah, I know) more A-10s could be produced reasonably cheaply.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the A10. Why not just build more?

Super Tucano payload- 3300 lbs. Warthog payload-16000 lbs.

@Bangorstu
I've oftened wondered what price you'd get quoted by the defense industry if you handing over the plans for a Hawker Typhoon calling it 'a COIN aircraft for use with allies that have poor tech base' or some such.

As a matter of interest, what counter-measures can you have against a .50 cal tearing a huge great hole in a wing?

Make the wings out of something that doesn't shred. Like aluminum instead of composites. B17s flew home with ALL the great gaping holes in the airframe. Though there was also some serious understructure there that was overbuilt and highly damage-resistant.

Built Boeing Tough is not a marketing slogan, it's FACT.

And I'd have thought that IF the desire to gold-plate everything can be avoided (yeah, I know) more A-10s could be produced reasonably cheaply.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the A10. Why not just build more?

Tooling to build them was destroyed about 20 years ago. We'd have to completely rebuild the assembly line first.

Problem is that a B17 is bigger than a Tucano and hence can take more damage.

The sad sight of the American cemetery at Madingley proves the B17 wasn't invulnerable.

A hole is a hole and gravity will win out.

@cwlinsj

I think I'll stand by my comment thanks.

Amongst all militaries the trend is towards multi/swing role aircraft. A large part of the reason for this is saving money. Getting more for your money from each aircraft.

A single role aircraft, which can only operate in a permissive air environment and has limited to no ability to connect with any other player through TDLs is of limited value.

I've said this before but it seems a lot of the support for A-10 seems to be based upon a 'cool gun'. CAS is not about the weapon used. It is about the effect you want to have on target. In current operations this is being well serviced by other platforms.

As an aside, currently the A-10 is working in roughly the same altitude blocks as other CAS assets.

It can operate in skies somnewhat more hostile than an Apache can.

It's not just the cool gun. It's how armoured it was.

Ideal I'd have thought for the type of COIN wars being fought now.

It is a good CAS asset, don't get me wrong. Its biggest failings both now and in Afghanistan was its slow transit time and poor connectivity. Armour is less of an issue if you have a good defensive aid suite and can sit mid level to deliver effective ordinance.

My point is that it's a bit of a one trick pony. Something which no one can really afford right now.

Problem is that a B17 is bigger than a Tucano and hence can take more damage.

Bigger airframe means larger forces on the wings, too.

Yes, bigger means greater redundancy (witness those B17s coming home with one engine still turning and the other 3 dead), but the actual airframe was massively overbuilt, even compared to the B24 or B36.

Crud, even civilian Boeings are frighteningly tough. Remember the Aloha Airlines "convertibles" that lost some or most of their top skin back in the 1980s? They still landed safely, the only fatality being one flight attendant who was not belted in at the time the top peeled off.

Belly skin on a Boeing is over 3mm thick, and then you get into the actual structural pieces!

The sad sight of the American cemetery at Madingley proves the B17 wasn't invulnerable.

No, not invulnerable. Just the toughest plane in the sky.

A hole is a hole and gravity will win out.

Yeah, a hole in the wing spar itself will usually take down an airplane.

My point is that it's a bit of a one trick pony. Something which no one can really afford right now.

Yet the US Army would happily take over the entire A10 program at the cost of something like $500 USD million a year, if the USAF were to give it up.

Im not sure where you get that idea from. All I've seen says the exact opposite. There'd be a whole lot of indirect funding required to support the A-10.

link

OK, you have the pilots, the airframe mechanics, the powerplant mechanics, the ordnance loaders, all the schools, and the dedicated ground service equipment (gun loader).

Plus operational costs per flight hour.

It's not cheap, no.

There's also the wonderful Key West Agreement, which gave the USAF control of all armed fixed-wing aircraft, leaving the Army in charge of armed rotary-winged aircraft.

Yet the US Army would happily take over the entire A10 program at the cost of something like $500.00 USD USD million a year, if the USAF were to give it up.

Once again, dead wrong. The idea was kicked years ago and the Army resoundingly said NO.