How Would You Improve the A-10?

There is still the issue of a deep strike aircraft...namely the F-15/16 are old technology and will need to be replaced soon.

The Harriers were nearing the end of their service life also. It's an old airframe in other words.

So the F-35 was supposed to replace the AV-8B, A-10, F-15 "Strike Eagle" and supplement the Navy F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet"; ideally anyway. I won't argue the program has suffered many set-backs and over-runs. However the sunk costs are such that it might be more expensive to cancel than to keep.

We still need a solution to an aging aircraft inventory. They aren't getting any younger as I type this.

Personally I like the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" for the Navy and possibly a modernized AV-8B for the USMC. The Marines didn't want the "Super Hornet" they wanted the F-35. They like having the ability to go V/STOL.

 

Do you really think someone would be entuthiastic in discussing things with you if you are failing to follow the general thread and your own words?

I wasn't saying a straight wing aircraft can't travel supersonic, that is your fantasy.

You havn't proved that wing thickness is the key factor. Repeating that again and again doesn't make it true.
On the other hand, I've provided photo evidense of hypersonic aircraft with thick wings.
Apparently the concept of longer straight wing increasing the leading edge surface and, consequently, drag, compared to a swept one, is too complicated for you.

We were not discussing "viable" solution. We were discussing what is the key factor in drag. You've bringed X1, I bringed X-37.
Swept wings are viable solution as each and every modern serial supersonic design shows. Unless, of course, you think you are smarter than all those scientists and engeneers behind the desks.

"Thick wing is the main obsatcle in making aircraft supersonic"----I give you an example of thick swept wing supersonic aircraft----"THAT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!!11 You proof is not a proof!!111". Silly, indeed.
Oh, yeah, and a photo of "relatively thin wing", so anyone could see it.

Do you see that little thing in the canopy? That is pilot's head.

Yep, technology have moved forvard since X-1 (was it 1946?), they use swept wings now.

You have yet to explain why does every single modern supersonic design use "irrelevant", according to you, swept wings and not all of them stick to thin wings.

I would like to see some argumentation for that claim.

 

You just answered your own question. The F35 is trying to do everything and that is just flat out impossible. You can be master of one or a jack of all trades. You cannot be master of all though. You can't ignore physics and the laws of aerodynamics. If you want a long range aircraft you will need a larger frame to either hold more fuel itself or hold more external fuel. If you want a more nimble fighter you can either make it smaller which reduces the amount of ordnance it can carry or you can give it lots of power which will mean more fuel is burned and thus reduce the range.

What they should have done from the get go is design the basic systems that could be standardized across the board and then develop different airframes for different mission profiles. That way the electronics and avionics could be standardized which would cut down on maintenance costs but with the different airframes you could use the best model for each type of mission.

You keep talking about how old the other planes are yet the F35 doesn't even perform as well as they do in their roles. It can't out maneuver older fighter jets, its can't out last the A-10 in staying power or turning radius, and it can't match the range of those "old" long range fighters either. Its a complete piece of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Best way to improve A-10 is to put it in a museum. The F-35, F-18 can fill its anti tank roles. Bring back the Skyraider or buy Super Tucanos for long loiter CAS/nation building roles.

 

^ A very well written message and the principles you post of are sound.

The problem is that the thinking is comparing aircraft against aircraft in a battle theater sense, and the Air Force is starved for funding of extraordinary new technologies of selective target - small and large - of such capabilities there is internal debating if they are even ethnical to use. I'm not a techie but know someone very involved in such development. That person likes the A-10, but hates the $$ it consumes. It isn't so much the cost of the aircraft or modernizing it, as it is also all the costs the training, facilities and support personal necessary to go along with it, with these constantly being replaced with newbies - and the huge training costs etc that goes along with it.

Few people give thought to the diversity of technological and tasks demands placed on the Air Force. How ancient is our intercontinental ballistic missile systems, facilities, equipment and defenses? How much more surveillance demands worldwide can the Air Force handle? How outdated can their missiles become? How much more can they spend on drone development? Just how much smaller can the Air Force be made in personnel? B1s aren't cheap. But they get thru and leave little warning. And in that all, where is any money left for NEW systems, entirely new concepts of weapons and tactics that never existed before?

The person I have had numerous discussions with is quite fascinating. I asked what is the greatest job injury potential concern the person had. It wasn't chemicals, explosions, fire, electrocution, being crushed etc. It was instant deconstruction of every cell in the human body. "You work on equipment that can do that?" Answer "Yes." My response: "That'd make a helluva weapon." Answer: "You think?" My question: "What is the potential range?" Answer: "Line of sight." Line of sight at 40,000 is 245 miles. At the speed of light. "Can that really be made into a weapons system?" Answer: "It's only a question of the developmental money for weaponization."

The extraordinary potentials technology offers is almost beyond even imagination. While the USA certainly can not so advance, other countries will. The A-10 isn't the future and no substantial conflict will be decided by A-10s. Technological inferiority could have catastrophic consequence.

That's the problem with old thinking, though I do understand the concept of use what you know works by past experience. But your message also has the concept of we'll just keep making a better aircraft than the Russians and Chinese back and forth, while the Air Force brainiacs increasingly are looking at manned air to air combat as being as relevant in the future as issuing the Marines improved cutlasses and shields as a big new budget item. Most will explain they are confident the F35 will be the last manned fighter ever made due to the demands necessary to accommodate a pilot and the severe limitations of what the human body can do and how fast the human brain can think.

While the A10 may be ideal in a very limited set of circumstances, there are other systems that can get the job done overall good enough in relation to the overall vast array of demands and needs.

 

Actually, the Mintueman III is still a world class missile system, due to almost constant upgrades they have gotten over the last 40 years. Everything from electronics to engines and warheads have been upgraded and replaced almost constantly, so they are not out of date at all. And they are even more accurate then ever, going form a CEP of around 650 meters in the original version, to 450 meters on the Minuteman II, to 350 meters on the original Minuteman III. Currently the accuracy is in the range of 150 meters CEP. That is better then the 200 meters of the newest Russian ICBM.

And all equipment involved is just as updated. Why people think that our equipment is obsolete I have no idea.

As far as defenses, we essentially have none. Not since the NIKE system was retired in the 1970's. We could have such a system in place almost any time it was needed. We have an excellent ICBM defensive system already built and tested, it would only need to be deployed. But can anybody see the US Government ever doing that any time soon? People would scream about the costs, which would be enormous.

And ICBM defense is not the arena of the Air Force anyways, that is done by the US Army.

 

U mad bro? Your pic doesnt show what you say, firstly its a frontal aspect which means if it was a straight wing you'd have an argument with that pic, but coincidentally because its swept the thickness develops gradual due to the sweep. Secondly, and probably more relevant, its actually a pic of the fuselage, not the wings!!!! Sweep helps, but its not essential.... for the actual discussion you jumped in on it was about the A10, you know the thread topic, and its wing is too thick as is, not the sweep, which is stopping it. The fact your into arguing about how much sweep is important is pointless without metrics... and irrelevant to the discussion you jumped in on, as part of what makes the A10 the A10 is its load carrying capacity and slow speed performance. There are lots of unique things about the A10 besides its gun - but of course your not having that discussion are you....

 

I wouldn't. The concept of flying low and attacking with a big gun is obsolete. This was proven in the Gulf War were Saddam's Republican guard gave the A-10 a beating and General Horner had to send in F-16s to bomb them. Any competent opponent armed with MANPADs would blast the A-10 out of the sky.

F-35 carries a higher payload than the A-10 by the way. But its very expensive to be the primary CAS plane to get lots of sorties. Cheap drones would dominate the CAS arena.

 

I'd make the A10 into a drone. Possibly giving the controls to ground troops to increase safety

Even if all the bad things being said about it here are true it still flies better than most drones, and it has a really substantial terror potential IMO, if you can convert the Vulcan to antipersonnel use.. It can't go up against tanks or carry pilots anymore but send 2 or 3 in to plow up the ground some Toyota's and Taliban are on.....

 

UAV's (drones) may become obsolete on the battlefield if you are going up against a real military like Russia.

Last week it was reported that in just ten days the U.S. military and NATO have learned more about Russia's military capabilities than during the past ten years.

Those fears of why the U.S. has lost UAV's over the Ukraine and Iran are now confirmed.

Cell phones all of a sudden becoming useless in Syria. E-3 AWACS over Turkey unable to see into Syria. Low orbit satellites blinded. Think of an EA-6 Prowler or EFA-18 Growler sitting on a truck.

How concerned is Obama, he's clueless and doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). But yesterday the U.S. Navy sent out a directive to all ship's captains to dig out that old sextant and master that old art of celestial navigation.

It's always going to come down to the grunt on the ground with his rifle and bayonet with some old fashion fire support using dumb bombs and old style artillery.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/06/spy-planes-signal-jammers-and-putins-high-tech-war-in-syria/

 

This. I don't know why people can't get this in their head. The F-35 is a specific case of this tech blindness where people say that it's stealth ability is all it needs, who cares if it can manuever. What happens when the enemy removes stealth. Going back to the A-10, they say "oh well F16s can drop GPS guided bombs so we don't need the old A-10, no one uses can no s and dumb bombs anyway." They ignore military reality and think that since we are fighting dirt farmers that no military could possibly counter our technological advances. I'd think the first thing a real enemy does is attempt to destroy our technological advantage, even if it takes from their own, because it's a huge force multiplier. That's why we still need a dedicated ground attack aircraft.

 

How will the enemy remove these tech advantages? That is the question.

The A-10 is a tech advantage, technically. Its a multi million dollar airframe.

 

US Navy Revives Ancient Navigation as Cyber Threats Grow

 

Way I see it there was a reason I sucked at land nav, and it was because we had to use a map, compass, and terrain features... that and it wasn't well trained but damned if I couldn't figure out a plugger with about 0 hours of training. That plugger would be useless without satellites though. Our tech will not help us in a real war. It's the first thing the enemy will hit because why wouldn't you want to take away a giant advantage right off the bat?

 

We had to learn that stuff in the Cub Scouts when I was a kid, and we didn't seem to have much of a problem with it. Maybe if they put buttons and lights on the gear, 'modern' types might be able to get it? ...

 

I probably learned more about land navigation as a Boy Scout than I did in the Marine Corps. But my MOS 0849, Shore Fire Control Party Man ( Naval Gunfire Spotter) required that I know how to use a map, compass and those mill ticks on a set of binoculars. I also needed to know at all times where we were on a map. Kinda of difficult when your in a triple canopy rain forest or eight foot tall elephant grass where you can't see more than twenty feet. GPS wouldn't work a triple canopy rain forest. GPS is useless in a steep narrow canyon.

Back then we didn't have GPS, laser range finders, hand calculators and you didn't carry a slide rule with you. You had to use your brains when calculating.

When I got out of the Corps in 71 I got into sailing, bought a sloop and soon got interested in navigation at sea. I bought one of those cheap plastic sextants, started reading books, took a USCG approved course in celestial navigation and even the Jr. College at the time had a 3 credit unit course on celestial navigation.

Reading navigation charts is easy, Dead reckoning is easy if you know your basic high school level math. Using a sextant isn't as hard as they make it seem. Maybe hard for those who grew up using calculators instead of your brains or have never used a slide rule or even knows what a slide rule is and being able to use protractors, dividers and rulers. You have to have an excellent chronograph watch when using celestial navigation.

I got to where some times I was dead on while other times I was off a 1/4 of a mile.

I bought my first GPS unit for my boat in the late 1990's. Back then the U.S. military ran and operated the GPS satellites. Then came the Gulf and on the third day of the first Gulf war I was sitting on my sloop sucking up some suds and decided to turn on my GPS. It showed that my boat was no longer in it's slip but was sitting a 1/4 of a mile away in the parking lot of the yacht club. That's what the U.S. military did just in case Saddam's military was using GPS.

 

Notice what I have been saying for years when it comes to whose who scream that the UAV is the future of air combat. Since people first started talking about how much better it was then manned aircraft, i would bring up the fact that nations with advanced technologies can easily render them inoperable because of ECM and other interdiction techniques.

It does not take a lot to render much of modern technology out of service, especially that which relies upon radio waves of any kind. This means any kind of operating of drones and equipment that relies upon GPS. Yes, GPS is more accurate then any other kind of navigation, but it is also susceptible to jamming, ECM, and many other things. This is why even decades after the advent of GPS, weapons systems like the Tomahawk still rely upon inertial navigation and photographic mapping as their primary means of navigation.

And that men in the cockpit will not likely be replaced by remotely operated machines for many decades at least. I always laugh when people who have no idea think that the military actually relies upon all of the high tech gadgets that they think are required for modern warfare.

Even the PATRIOT and THAAD units, with their satellite communications and GPS still operate in many ways manually and old school. Every battery has the capability to communicate with units all over the world, and emplace their launchers with inches of accuracy because of GPS and other technologies. And can fire from miles away from the launcher itself.

But the emplacement? It is still done primarily with the M2 Aiming circle (like a surveyors sextant, little changed for over 60 years), the SSS (a 1980's piece of inertial navigation strapped to the hood of a HMMWV), and plotting positions on a map with a compass and figuring out the coordinates old-school style. The GPS is simply treated as a back-up to verify the information, it is not the primary means of determining where the equipment is actually located.

And the remote firing via scrambled encripted frequency-hopping radio? Almost never used, 40 year old fibre optic cable is what is used 98% of the time.

The technophiles love to scream from the mountain tops that some new piece of technology is going to change everything. But in over 30 years I have seen few if any changes that really changed things. And the more advanced a technology is, the more likely things will go wrong at some time. With CRAM, we can eliminate almost all inbound fire before it strikes, but we still build bunkers because nothing is perfect.

 

What probably helped my land nav to the degree that it is was my 3 years of Army JROTC in High School.

Every year, we spent weeks on the basics of land navigation in the classroom. Finding points, measuring distances, plotting the easiest routes, resection, all in a classroom setting. I knew how to do some advanced techniques, before I ever held a real life map in my hands in the real location.

When I finally had to put these skills to use, I found it a snap. Looking at real features and finding them on the map, then converting magnetic to map north and figuring the correct back-azmuth then finding a second or third such location was a piece of cake. I even found doing 8 and 10 digit coordinates a snap, when most Lieutenants were happy with a 6 digit coordinate.

It shocked my Recon section chief when I made a fire chart, plotting my location "old school", complete with 10 digit coordinates, with only a map, protractor, and compass. Shocked him even more when i was off less then 50 meters from my location as plotted by GPS. And my dead reckoning distance as measured by Mark I Eyeball was only 25 meters off of a small crest almost 600 meters away (I think I called it 600, was actuallty around 580 meters away).

But interestingly enough, the second best land nav person I ever met was another kid with 4 years JROTC. Same in depth training I had, years of classroom prior to being given his first "Hands On" in the Army. One thing that almost no Soldiers ever get is such detailed training. I wish it would be taken more seriously then it is.

 

Catapults, swords, shields and longbows - that is the only thing that could defeat ISIS and hold off the Russians. All this new technology stuff is worthless, wasted money.

 

Believing UAVs are dependent upon radio waves is so outdated. Independent hunter-killer drones and their software was designed some time ago. The Air Force is well up on dealing with EMC shielding.

 

I decided to see if there's any thing new up on the internet with Russia and there electronic warfare systems being used in Syria that caught the U.S. military and NATO off guard.

Note:
The comments down below are not my comments.

 

The American Vought VE-7 Bluebird, if equipped with a modern small 4 cylinder motor, could hover over an area as manned ground support aircraft for precision targeting much longer than an A-10 - and would cost significantly less. We could put at least 25 and maybe 50 VE-7s over troops for the cost of one A-10 Thunderbolt. Of course, blimps would even be better, but they would cost more.

 

Any methods to knock out the electronics of a pre-programmed self initiating drone would equally knock out the electronics of a manned aircraft.

 

Re: coordinates

Calling in a naval gunfire mission, you use a 6 digit coordinates and for a ground artillery call for fire it was always a 8 digit coordinates.

Never had to come up with a 10 digit coordinates for any fire support mission but I suppose it wouldn't be that difficult, just doing a little more thinking.

 

A good fighter jock who is able to fly by the seat of his pants isn't dependent on electronics.

The question is, how many of todays pilots are able to fly by the seat of their pants ?

A while back I crossed paths with an old girlfriend who was with her current boyfriend. She was so proud telling me that he flew a Boeing 777.

I wiped the grin of her boyfriend's when I informed them that my son flew a FA-18 Hornet.

Then I burst both of their bubbles when I said, " You don't fly that 777, a computer flies that 777."
Then I went further, "When I'm flying a Cessna 152, I'm actually flying the Cessna 152."