A-10 "Warthog"

I didn't realize that the F-35 JSF was scheduled to replace one of my favorite planes, the A-10 Warthog. I read that it will remain in service until at least 2028, so some time from now, but what a bad ass piece of equipment. In tribute:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Super cool plane. Growing up my Dad was in the Air Force and was stationed at a couple of A-10 bases in England. I used to watch them do manuevers all the time. There are some great Youtube videos out there of the destruction they can cause.

 

Any chance you can link to that illustration? I'd love to examine it in detail.... t.i.a.

 

Couple of cool links:

http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/a10-thunderbolt-ii_50290dcb04a3c.png
SAUSAGE CART: The Warthog
File:A-10 Cross Section.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Yep, an all time favorite.

General 1: "We need a big gun to kill tanks"
General 2: "Yes, but it needs to be real mobile"
Captain: "How 'bout we make it a flying gun"\

Footnote:
Yet another instance where Northrop lost out.
Northrop YA-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However this time I agree that their platform was not ideal. It has been demonstrated that the engine arrangement of the A-10 produced a much more survivable platform against SAM's than a mid-fuselage arrangement (e.g. A-6 and Harrier).

 

I can clearly see the F-35 replacing the F-16, the F-18 and the AV-8, but I simply cannot see it ever replacing the A-10. The A-10, and its predecessor, the A-1, were the type of "flying dump truck" that a supersonic stealth fighter like the F-35 cannot take the place of. I sincerely doubt that it could carry anywhere near the amount of ordnance that the A-10 can carry.

When the A-10 finally is replaced, it will be with a UAV that hasn't been conceived yet.

 

The F35A model (not the vertical T/O version) has a weapons load of 18,000 lbs. The A10 carries a weapons load of 16,000 lbs. I'd guess that the reason for the 18,000 lbs requirement was that they would be able to say that the F35 could carry more than an A10. Lockheed is nothing if not astute in making sure they have strong political reasons to replace the status quo.

I'm also sure the VSTOL version won't carry as much, but he AF isn't going to buy that version, so as far as the USAF is concerned they have a similar weapons load. I'm a big fan of the A10 and am positive that it's also a lot more cost effective a weapons system than an F35, but there's no big lobbying effort to keep it around, so despite it's cost effectiveness, the F35 will probably replace it, even though that's a dumb idea.

While, like I said, I'm a big fan of the A10, it does have it's limitations. It sorely needs more power for hot day missions. On hot day's, with a full load of fuel it can't carry much. They used to load it with a "Barney Fife" payload. That was a couple of bombs and one Maverick, and that was it. And even then it wouldn't climb very quickly, which made it pretty vulnerable. It needs more power and GE was pitching the CF34-10, which was a dumb idea. The reason it's a dumb idea is the -10 engine is much heavier than the current engine, and it would have required a bunch of lead in the nose, and then the fuselage would have had to have been beefed up to take the increased bending loads, and half of the payload gain would get eaten up in modding the airplane. GE then offered a revised CF34 (afer RR offered a uprated 3007) that wasn't as heavy as the -10, but I don't know what became of the plan to re-engine the bird after that. The A10 will be around for a good while, the wing SLEP upgrades 242 airplanes and extends the life to 2040, so there isn't as big a need to replace it as you might think.

And the USAF is working on the next generation of drones, it's called MQ-X and the propulsion lab is about to award some study contracts on propulsion for it in the next couple of months. The idea is to increase the weapons load of an aircraft the size of the Reaper by at least 2000 lbs...

 

Cool plane.. my favourite jet.

Wonder what happens to them when finally not in service.. scrapped? degunned and available to ultra wealthy flyers and collectors?

 

You would want to be real careful when they scrap them. Many (most) went through a wing re-skinning program because pilots tended to yank them around a bit more aggresively than originally designed for. They have lived well past their intended service life and could be lots of structural fatigue related issues.

 

Likely was not much of an issue for the original intended theater of operations, i.e. busting Soviet armor in W. Germany.

 

I agree, probably didn't matter popping tanks coming thru the Fulda gap... Now, tho they are seeing daily action in the Middle East and that's a whole nother bag of cats... It was pretty evident that they needed to be re-engined right after Desert Storm, and we were working on solutions for that even before 911, but that got put off with the need for operational funds. Of course with the action winding down, budgets will get cut and there won't be money to do it later either... It does seem like that's the way it always is.

 

Interesting! Hawgsmoke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for bringing it up!

 

Wasn't the talk prior to Desert Storm to replace them with A-16's? I'm sure a lot of that was Lockheed lobbyists, but I recall that they (A-10's) were expected to be phased out soon. Of course then came along DS and it was finally able to fulfill its destiny.

 

Yes, there were (are??) lots of warthogs in the boneyard and there was a push on to retire the aircraft. After Desert Storm that changed. They weren't nicknamed "whispering death" by the folks on the wrong end of the gun for nothing....

 

I don't think a UAV could ever fully replace the A-10.

 

Unless you fit them with the big Gatling gun!!

Watch some of the YouTube vids where they take out some insurgents - "whispering death" is apropos.

 

Very cool!

 

wow, that's really cool!

there were a bunch of A10's based in central Mizzourah (Whiteman and/or Ft Leonard Wood) that would buzz our lake house from time to time...and I mean, a few hundred feet off the deck. awesome.

 

I've spent way too much time online watching videos of AC-130s, Apaches and A-10s killing insurgents

But it's not just the gatling gun. It's the situational awareness and being able to come in and strafe at a couple hundred feet altitude. We are more than 20 years away from drones being able to do that. The MQ-X has no such requirement, and I don't think that kind of precision flying and aim would even be possible with current latency in satellite communications.

 

When I was a range officer, we hated A-10s because they chewed up the range so badly. Scoring is done by acoustic sensors for cannons and the A-10s would tear up the sensors and the poles where they hung. When an A-10 finished with a run, it looked like someone had plowed the range, with furrows up to 18" deep extending for yards.

Now with the A-10C coming on line, the improvements for compatibility with PGMs, and the life extension programs, they will be around for quite a while. Flying low and slow has advantages for CAS, and the Army's attempt to take over the mission with helicopters was a complete failure, so their retention is completely justified. Plus none of the rest of us wanted to do that mission. Too many people shooting at you.

 

There used to be A-10s up near Fairbanks, with some ranges to the East and South. Lots of moose in the ranges. A few less...

 

My Dad used to bring me spent shells from the A-10's. I think I have one in the attic still. As a kid I remember marveling how big they were. Lots of powder in those things. I remember watching a program on the A-10 and it indicated that in combat they fired depleted uranium rounds to cut through tank armor. So I can only imagine what they did to a range.

 

lol, I've got a dummy round sitting in front of me on my desk. Got it back in 84' when the AF Structures Test Lab at WPAFB was performing a static test of the A-10 fuselage and wing.