A-10 wings all done.

I like this part...

"This final fleet of A-10s are expected to operate for up to 10,000-flight hours or an estimated 20-yrs. of Service."

 

I see them flying all the time over Tucson...awesome plane. In reality they shouldn't call it a plane. It's more accurately a large gun with wings and a seat put on it.

 

In the mid 80's an A-10 visited the Paine Field Air Show and I spoke with the pilot at length. He told me that they couldn't fire their weapon at full rate because the muzzle gases choked the engines. That bit of knowledge got my attention when I thought about a gun that developed that much gas has to be a formidable weapon. Now, just ahead of the wing there is a strake or fence that I suppose directs the muzzle gas under the airplane. I also noticed the extreme angle of negative incidence of the horizontal tail that I assume is needed to counteract the extreme nose down pitching moment of the highly cambered wing. What a great airplane.

 

One of the most joyful surprises of my life was while spending the day at Pima, and saw a couple of A-10s low passing and flying patterns. At the time it was entirely unexpected, I never imagined I would happen to see A-10s in flight that day.

 

What is replacing them? Drones?

 

Me too! Caught me by surprise landing and circling Davis Monthan (north side of afb, not Pima).

The F16 ANG was an awesome surprise too while I was landing at the airport. Saw them all parked under their covered area and flipped out lol. Hearing 4 take off one after another when I was waiting for my departure never got old.

 

Andrew- Whatever replaces them will need to have lower observables if they fight in a near peer engagement. The A-10 is a flying radar reflector.

 

How do they compare to an attack helo?

 

I do not have any absolute numbers, but the AH-64 has a suppressed IR signature, especially compared to an A-10 and the surface area is much smaller. There are stealthy helicopters out there, but whether that has been applied to the AH-64 or a black equivalent I do not know. Both are vulnerable in high threat environments.

 

From a stealth perspective the original scenario of European TOA was more beneficial than the sandbox. To a large degree why the A-10s needed re-winging, as the pilots flying in Europe in the 80's were really giving the planes a high-g workout flying low level for terrain masking.

 

As someone on another forum mentioned, each of those A-10 upgrades costs about the same as one F-35 helmet!

Well, small exaggeration, but still!

 

I am so glad I lived next to Martin State airport for a decade. I loved the frequent A-10s. Only thing cooler would have been to live there while all the seaplanes were being developed on that river. (Bob's book made me think of that timeframe)

 

Jim- Their high g maneuvers are not everybody else's high g maneuvers. An A-10 pilot on one of my USAFE IG visits to the F-15 unit at Bitburg was really having problems with the Gs he was seeing (~7.5) during inspection sorties. Did not really bother me or the other fighter guys. No doubt the A-10 wings had a little extra dihedral after years of use, though.

 

I never knew that. Is it bc of the shape?

 

Saw this one at the Russell Military Museum.
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Andrew- Affirmative, the shape and all the angles where wings, tail units, etc meet the fuselage. Those are pretty much corner reflectors. The engines on the A-10 were placed to reduce IR signature, but that was against 80s threats like SA-7s. Newer IR seekers are much more sensitive.

 

This and the AC-130 are the two Air Force aircraft we Marines most enjoy seeing on a bad day! Huge fan of these platforms, and they have pulled us out of many a pickle!!

(Written from KASTOC, Jordan)


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

Haven't seen an airstair since I was a kid... used to be the only way to board an airliner.
They were movable and adjustable, a Connie was higher than a DC-6.

 

No doubt if you were fighting insurgents in SWA, the A-10 and AC-130 could do a job on the bad guys.

 

The Af was alleging the F35 would replace the A10(for 10x the cost+++), and yes the A10 suffers in a hig threat enviroment. But for counterinsurgency its the beast. Or we could buy the russian equivalent which is cheaper and arguably better still.

 

The SU-25?

 

Yes, simple rugged powerful.

I think the miltary is obsessed with an aircraft that can in theory work in a high threat enviroment. But most enagements after the first day or so are not going to be high threat, and then you need something that will work economicaly and effectively, and in quantity, and thats not the f35.

How many times in aviation warfare history has the old rugged reliable aircraft proved more than its worth.

 

I thought the AF was looking at a couple of turboprops to replace the A10?

Sent from my Umidigi One Max using Tapatalk

 

Sean- No longer true, unfortunately. Times have changed.