How Would You Improve the A-10?

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Dayton3, Aug 23, 2015.

  1. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd add a rearward firing vulcan to it and maybe a rearview mirror. And a cd player.
     
  2. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Riiiiiiight
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I like my idea of making them drones. Lotsa firepower and cheap to make, since we already got the jigs and templates
     
  4. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Blah I dont need to read up on it, I've read too much already to read anymore. Wing thickness is the primary factor.
    The X1 had no sweep and it was supersonic, heck even a P51 can break the sound barrier. No-one said wing sweep wasn't beneficial to higher speeds, but you said it was 'the' reason the A10 wouldn't go fast no matter how many engines you put on it etc. Well no, its wing thickness not sweep which is the main thing reducing a design's ability to fly fast safely. That is what I'm replying to, your statement, not whether sweep is a factor or not.

    And unfortunately I have to agree with KGBAgent in regards to the usefulness of the A10 in full war, times have moved on since the "Fulda Gap, high attrition, save as much of Europe as you can before we nuke each other" scenarios. It's no longer safe for manned platforms to conduct BAI against a modern well equipped armor formation at low to medium levels.
     
  5. sunnyside

    sunnyside Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    4,573
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The US assumes we'll have air supremacy. Which works out just fine for us so long as it holds true. And not building front line anti-aircraft vehicles gives us more resources elsewhere. But not nation has that strategy.

    As KGB agent notes, Russia in particular has armored vehicles intended to fight on the move and engage the A-10 specifically as well as attack helicopters and similar craft. Germans and Brits have similar vehicles. Other countries probably do too and I just don't know about them.

    I don't think we've had A-10s actually go up against them. However I'd expect the A-10 to be at a significant disadvantage since the point of the thing is using that gun, and the aircraft needs to take the time to line up the shot.

    So I think the A-10 currently falls in an awkward spot between the craft that can fight a war against such forward anti-aircraft systems (F-35s that are fast and hard to target, and modern Apaches that can peek over terrain with their radome and fire from behind it) and craft that are good in an insurgency (drones).

    Awww. I was hoping for videos.
     
  6. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The gun really wasn't the main thing of the A10 in its prime anyway, it was more an AGM65 truck in BAI. The gun just gave it a perfectly apt secondary weapon for opportunities which suited its employment. So these days it seems only relegated to a novel CAS platform, which no-one can afford to maintain forever since it doesnt bring anything unique which is actually required - and the things it does do, others do better (AC130 for cannons, fast jets for bombs).
     
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not nessicarily "air supremacy", that was never guaranteed at the time the A-10 was designed and our adversary was the Warsaw pact.

    Instead, the assumption was that the air combat aircraft would be so budy going after other air attack aircraft that they would not be tied up in the front lines on the ground, the air area where the A-10 would be operating in. Air to air combat is at medium to high altitude, the A-10 operates at low altitudes, along with the attack helicopters. Far lower then the altitude the MiGs and Sus would be operating in.

    It really has little to nothing to do with "air supremacy", since the assumption was that during most of a NATO-Warsaw conflict, neither side would have "air supremacy".

    And I am well aware of this. But these aircraft are severely limited.

    The "big boys" (S-300, S-125, PATRIOT, etc) are long range weapons, guided by powerful RADAR sites that can detect aircraft long before they can be seen from the ground. The easiest way to eliminate most of the threat from these systems is to fly "low and slow", below their visual horizon and the flight capabilities of the missile itself. This was the main concept in both the A-10, and the B-1 Bomber. If the aircraft is below a certain altitude, these weapons simply can not be fired at them.

    The types of systems used on the front lines are basically "direct sight" weapons. If the aircraft can not be seen, it can not be fired at. This greatly reduces the offensive capabilities of such weapons, limiting them to a very small window of oportunity of attacking a target. And while I am more then well aware of the advanced capabilities of these kinds of systems when tied to the SON 9 and similar RADAR systems. But the very fact that such a system radiates makes it easier to avoid and in turn makes them targets for HARM missiles.

    And trust me, we are actually talking about my specialty in case you did not realize it. Over 5 years in Air Defense in the US Army, studying capabilities and tactics of both the US and the Warsaw Pact tactics (which Russia and a great many other nations still use). You are looking at this in the way of disjointed equipment, I analyze it as it would be deployed and used in various combat scenarios. Things are not quite so simple when you take all of that into consideration.
     
  8. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nukes.......and not those (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) tactical nukes, I mean 5000 Gigaton nukes.
     
  9. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Seems to me that military tech is constantly evolving. Imo the a-10 is old tech, and has nostalgic support and affection based on past performance. Which is not likely to translate into future challenges and performance, like the Calvary in wwi
    Imo unmanned platforms will be able to exceed the a-10 in multiple ways. Doubtless these are somewhere in the pipeline, though not advertised for obvious security reasons
     
  10. KGB agent

    KGB agent Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are so wrong with that.
    Care to find any serial supersonic aircraft with straight wing?
    Hell, even transonic passanger jets have a wing sweep.

    [​IMG]


    Which was nothing, but a prototype, which served the purpose of studing aerodynamics at transonic and supersonic speeds.
    But if you want to go with that route:
    [​IMG]
    Boeing X-37, actually a hypersonic aircraft.
    Are it's wings thick enough to prove your wrong?

    Surely. However I doubt it still would be intact while doing that.

    It wasn't me.

    Nope. Wing thickness only correspondents to drag, while the shape of the wing correspondents to drag, lift, and influences the air flow.
    Speaking about "safety", wing's strength is the only factor here.


    You are confusing me with someone else. Again.
     
  11. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What he means are these ADA tanks like for example the German Gepard (still out of service today), the planned US Sgt. York, the M-113 version with Vulcan Gatling gun on it and the Russian ZSU 23-4 Shilka.
     
  12. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Earlier A-10s had TACAN navigation only which limited them to non-precision approaches. So to improve upon the avionics I would install a JPALS capable receiver . This is an all-weather landing system that gives a highly accurate 3d position capable of being used for approaches via an ILS style display.

    JPALS is jamming resistant and highly mobile meaning it can be set up on austere landing fields which the
    A-10 might operate in as they are usually based closer to the front. Much of the capabilities of JPALS are classified but I can say with confidence it is better than CAT III ILS accuracy, and will provide horizontal and vertical resolutions of less than 1 m.

    If you don't know the sensitivity of high precision (Category III) ILS accuracy, it can provide accurate guidance down to the surface of the runway. Theoretically it allows for operation in "zero-zero" conditions. Now for most folks the big, boner inducing, 30mm cannon on the A-10 is what makes the bad assery level peg the meter...but to me, as a connoisseur of technical flying; well used to be anyway, having the capability of landing a bird in near zero visibility conditions is what gets my motor running.

    A land based JPALS that can be taken anywhere, anytime and will provide an all-weather, anti-jam ILS system..at lower cost than current systems.

    It's the CATs meow.

    That's what I'd do to improve the A-10.

    Asked & Answered
     
  13. sunnyside

    sunnyside Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    4,573
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Is there any particular reason why the A-10 would be unique in being able to do that, such as its relatively low stall speed, or is that something we can put on basically any airframe and it just happens to be what you'd like to add to this one.

    I'm noticing some of those talking up stopping missiles and artillery at very close ranges. I wonder if that might provide a new niche for the A-10 since none of those systems would be able to intercept that GAU. Of course the A-10 would have to be able to survive getting lined up and close enough to make the shot. Maybe those systems are either very short ranged or their fragmenting munitions might not be so effective against the A-10? That sounds a little doubtful.

    All I was saying is that the US never really developed mobile anti-aircraft armored vehicles the way some other countries did. I suppose there could be other reasons why we don't develop those systems.

    Recently? Back in the days of manual aiming I could see the short ranged gun/missile systems being quite inadequate. However it seems you either aren't buying the claims behind those systems of being able to rapidly fire on an A-10 even should it pop up over terrain (to the extent an aircraft can) or their claims of low probability of intercept radar.

    Or is your thought that we'd clear out the AA systems with our stealthy but weapons capacity limited stealth craft, and then A-10s could arrive and wipe out the now defenseless armor?

    Do you think jamming of some sort would render drones unless prior to the insurgency phase of things?
     
  14. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In a nutshell:

    A CAT (Category) III is an ILS approach that is conducted in low visibility. the cockpit has specialized instruments that allow the pilot to fly in almost zero visibility

    Here are the designated minimums.

    RVR = runway visual range
    DH = designated decision height

    Cat.IIIa - 700 feet RVR - no DH (alert height generally 50 feet)
    Metric: 250 meters RVR

    Cat.IIIb - 600 feet RVR - no DH (alert height generally 35 feet)
    Metric: 175 metres RVR

    Cat.IIIc - zero ceiling, zero visibility - "blind" landing

    Having a Category III capability in the land based JPALS and the avionics equipped aircraft to utilize in an ILS style display...means the aircraft is not limited by an inability to land in a reduced visibility / bad weather environment.

    As I recall back in 1979, and the failed Operation Eagle Claw mission, a big factor in the mission's failure was due to rapidly decreasing visibility in the form of bad weather. Of course the A-10 was not involved in this particular mission, but my point is a scenario could be established wherein an A-10 may have to operate in a reduced visibility environment at some point in the course of a sortie and the ability to perform a precision approach for landing could come in handy.

    As I say, there are lots of improvements the A-10 could use, updating the avionics from say the older TACAN to a JPALS receiver is a good start. In combination with the mobile land based system, the A-10 effectively is no longer limited in a reduced visibility situation.

    I know the limitations of TACAN, that perhaps many may not be aware of. GPS can be jammed and JPALS is much more jamming resistant...it's mobile, and it's lower cost. Many aircraft can benefit from it's implementation and I've no doubt it is incorporated into the F-35A.
     
  15. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These existing mobile ADA tanks and systems are mostly able to destroy an A-10 on some miles of range. They are close air defence weapons with calibre of 23 to 40mm guns. On the other hand can A-10 take multipke hits of them without being shot down. But these weapons are of course not only developed to counter A-10, particularly not the western systems. Ghere are other threats like SU-25 Frogfoot (not to underestimate counter piece to A-10) and all other jets able for low high attacks ... not to forget the helicopters.
    Today is a change visible to missile systems like still older German/ French Roland or mobile thibgs more like a CIWS on trailer or truck.

    Remembers me all to the basic air defence training I got on German NCO course. We stood all on the normal standard 7.62mm machine gun on air defence mount and drill sargeant showed us models of wester and eastern planes and helicopters. At me he showed model of a USSR MilMi 24 Hind attack helicopter with question what I do now. Ny answer was "shouting air Alarm, taking cover and hoping that the **** has not seen us!"
    Angy reaction of drill sargeant: "what? You won't shoot down it with your machine gun? Are you coward?" My answer:"sure sargeant ... sure! Mujahedin in Afghanistan were not able to shot dow Hind with captured 14.5mm machine guns and needed stingers, but I shall make with this 7.62mm burp gun? So yes sir, I'm coward in this matter because better option as to make suicide!"
     
  16. namvet

    namvet New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    bring back the depleted uranium shells
     
  17. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm not 'wrong', LOL. The primary cause of drag in a wing is its thickness. That you do not know any supersonic straight wing acrft says a lot.... how about the X1?

    x-1.jpg

    As i said, even the P51 could go supersonic... though not recommended.

    It's wing thickness that is the primary thing, as that relates to drag, which relates to the discussion being had about making an A10 go faster by increasing thurst (to overcome drag). Obviously there are other types of drag, and they all increase with speed, but wing design is more crucial and they produce lift which has its own manifestations of drag beyond mere form drag.

    But the real question is why would anyone want an A10 operating at low level doing over Mach 1 is beyond me. If we are talking about making an A10 go faster, then surely we are still talking subsonic as the A10 operates at low altitude in a CAS, visual BAI role. My point is wing sweep is not the issue. You'd need to redesign the main wing to be thinner, and have full span flaperon's to manage handling in the low speed regime for example. Wing sweep is just nonsense in regards to the actual topic. Wing sweep has advantages to higher speeds, but it's not really relevant and certainly not the main reason.

    Stick a rocket on it or reenter from orbit and most anything can go fast enough, if strong enough.


    Of course, it was not designed for it, but the aerodynamics don't stop it doing it, which is what is being talked about.

    It wasn't addressed at you.

    I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion. I was replying to Mushroom's point that its wing sweep stopping the A10 going faster, and I replied the main reason is wing thickness. Those things you list are true, but not being discussed.... at the moment, by anyone but you?

    LOL, no I'm not, and your wrong, again. I was referncing your post where you highlite the Soviet/Russian mobile anti-air artillery and missile systems in argument against the A10 (and agreeing with you BTW). You seem very argumentative and overreaching, is English your first language (you dont have to answer if you dont want).
     
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly. Line of sight weapons, only able to engage a target for a short amount of time.

    Actually, this is a combination of 2 different things. And yes, we had developed a great many, almost all of them now obsolete and retired.

    In short, technology, strategy and tactics all passed them by. In short, they stopped putting mugh emphasis on short range systems, and concentrate on long range systems (PATRIOT, MEADS, THAAD). ABut we do still have one mobile system that can fire on the move, even if it is not armored, the AVENGER.

    And in a great many ways, the AVENGER is superior to most armored systems. It is faster, more maneuverable, and can keep up with armored columns. And having a system that is armored is not all that important, when pretty much any rocket or cannon can take it out. Unless you are going to base it on something as massive as the M1, it is rather pointless to armor them to be honest.

    Is 2012 recent enough? That is when I reclassified from 14T (PATRIOT Launching Station Enhanced Operator) to 25B (Information Technology Specialist). So yes, I am actually talking very currently, there have been no major changes in the last 3 years in that field.

    And I am not ignoring anything. Remember, RADAR emits radiation that is detectable roughly 3-5 times the distance that it can detect an aircraft from. So if a given RADAR can detect enemies 100 miles away, that means that that RADAR can be detected at least 300 miles away, more then enough for attacking aircraft to avoid them.

    And come on, terrain? A RADAR can not see an aircraft behind a hill, but the aircraft will know that the RADAR system is there.

    Did I say anything about taking out the systems? No, I don't think so. The vast majority of the AA systems will be miles behind the front lines, protecting more critical locations, like command posts, ordinance and fuel dumps, and things like that. Not trying to leapfrog up constantly with the front line troops. I think I said that quite clearly, but let me emphasize it once again.

    To move even a moderately mobile AA system, figure you will need at least 3-6+ hours to leap even 50 miles in the best of conditions. Which means that the only systems able to move with the front lines are MANPADS and vehicle borne MANPADS. Short range, line of sight, and generally only able to attack as a revenge strike, the aircraft has likely already dumped it's ordinance before the MANPADs can strike back at it.

    Especially in the advance.

    Drones? Who said anything about drones? Myself, I see them as a weapon of limited use at best, only good in a low level conflict like we are fighting now, pretty much worthless if we were ever to be fighting a technologically advanced enemy like Russia, China, or even Iran.
     
  19. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, I already gave my improvements, but after reading some of the other posts on this thread, here is my new improvements for the A-10.

    UAV. This is the future, like it or not. No reason to put our pilots in danger anymore.
    Swing wings. Get the best of both worlds. Put them out for low speed loitering, bring them in for high speed acceleration. (Yes, straight wings can go supersonic, but there is a fairly significant drag penalty).
    Higher speed. Combination of better, more efficient engines, swing wings and lighter but stronger armor and components.
    Stealth. Yes, current stealth is losing its advantage, but the new metamaterials being developed could make it truly invisible to radar.
    Updated electronics and avionics. Obviously.
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Drones are largely effective only because they are being used against people with the technological capabilities of a minor drug gang. Against a real opponant, they would be largely useless. Hell, even Iran is able to subvert them, and they are nowhere as sophisticated as say Russia or China.

    I think that when the next major war is ready for the history books, people are going to look back and wonder who in the hell thought drones were such a good idea. Amazingly easy to subvert and defend against, almost impossible to do any real damage with them. Largely, a shiny new toy that still has yet to really be proven in combat.

    Striking an SUV in Afghanistan with some Taliban leader inside is about as challenging as attacking a target on the White Sands Missile Range. Let's see what they do in a real battlefield, where the enemy has RADAR, attack aircraft, AEW aircraft, and sophisticated electronics warfare capability. Then you will find the huge amounts of money you dumped into drones is wasted because they are unable to operate, where the manned aircraft are still flying and doing missions.


    Against the kinds of threats that the A-10 typically faces, stealth is really not an issue. Their biggest threats are direct visual tracking and heat seeking missiles, not the RADAR tracked missiles that stealth is designed to defeat. So stealth on an A-10 is about as useful as throwing stealth on an aircraft carrier.

    The A-10 actually has some rather sophisticated avionics. But a lot of it's durability is that it also has some of the most basic avionics there are in aircraft. That is why even with horrible battlefield damage, they can still fly and return to base. Sometimes being the "newest and best" is not all that great. A shell takes out the avionics on an F-22, and it is falling to the ground. The same to an A-10, it keeps on going, just not as well as it did before. The things are amazingly robust, quite often because they still have a lot of old technology that is more failsafe then the newer stuff.
     
  21. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, but these are mostly no line of sight weapons, they have an own radar system on board! Look here image of German Gepard:

    [​IMG]

    The 2 radars of Gepard are able to detect and to aim targets up to 15km which are then attacked in range by the twin 35mm gun.
     
  22. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The A-10 is not a stand alone aircraft when discussing fighting technologically advanced enemies. An A-10 is a sitting duck against fighter aircraft. So it would be necessary to have support fighters defending the A-10s.

    A real problem for the military is the history of old soldiers always wanting to design the military to fight the last war, not a future war. It has already been decided there were be no Iraq War 1 or Iraq War 2 again. Nor will there be any large scale engagement in conventional weapons against Russia or China. Both would go nuclear very quickly as neither side would be willing to lose. That's why it doesn't happen. The A-10 is not a deterrent to major war. Missiles and bombers are.

    It also is clear that in fighting such as ISIS the prospect of any pilots being captured is an unthinkable thought. ISIS does have weapons systems to get a lucky break shooting down an A-10. ISIS has no means to shoot down fast high altitude aircraft. Drones can be shot down, but they're cheap by comparison and there is no pilot.

    People can keep pretending they'll be another Gulf War 1 and another "Highway of Death" slaughtering the enemy and everyone else below. It's not going to happen.

    What people do not address is what they are willing to give up in future weapons systems and technology to keep a half a century old aircraft still even usable. The technological race for maintaining superiority over Russia and China is the priority, not trying to figure how to make A-10 Thunderbolts or P47 Thunderbolts still usable in some limited ways and then designing tactics to facilitate them.

    There is a saying in the Air Force: "Fighter aircraft win battles, but bombers make policy." If the USA ever does get into a fight for survival there is no chance the A-10 would save us, which means the A-10 isn't a deterrent either. Which do you believe Russia or Iran fear more? Our A-10s or our bombers and missiles? The answer to that answers what our budget priority should be. There are all sorts of ways to kill insurgents. The A-10 isn't needed for this.

    I have never spoken to anyone who fought in Afghanistan who would not prefer helicopter hellfire support over them rather than an occasional A-10 fly-by.
     
  23. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The A-10 was designed because the Air Force did not want to give up the ground support roll for Infantry and the Marines. The Air Force, a very strapped budget, no longer wants that role. They have far greater challenges to address in the technological race.
     
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And what is not "line of sight" about that?

    Do those bullets turn corners and pop up and down behind mountains? Does the RADAR see around corners?

    "Line of sight" does not mean you can actually see the target, simply that there are no obstructions in the way, like a mountain.

    The Air Force never wanted that role, that is why until the A-10 they were still using a WWII era prop plane for that job.

    And guess what, I could not care less. The Air Force agreed when it was created to handle ground support as one of their primary duties.
     
  25. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    12,410
    Likes Received:
    2,689
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, for sure not possible .... but at least this is valid for ALL ground based Air Defence systems, isn't it?
     

Share This Page