A-10 Thunderbolt II service life extended 6 years

[FordGT90Concept]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/air-force-to-keep-a-10-flying/index.html

Reason: F-35 isn't ready to replace it.


I think they should stop looking to the F-35 and should start work on designing a Thunderbolt III. They should be able to take the basic airframe, upgrade the avionics and install larger, more efficient engines, and upgraded metal alloys decreasing the cost to build and maintain them.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

The reason being is nothing better.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yup, the military brass knows the F-35, under ideal circumstances, can't replace it. A-10 is a danger-close air support frame and the only in the miltary that is fixed wing. It can get to the target faster than a helicopter, can dish out more damage while it is there (not to mention the psychological impact of the GAU-8 roar, and it can take (and survive) more ground to air fire than any helicopter. It's a crying shame they only extended it for six years. It is the perfect airframe for dealing with threats like ISIS.

 

[droopyRO]

The A-29 dose most of the work the A-10 is doing in COIN operations. As much as i like the A-10 it has no real purpose in today's battlefield, too expensive to hunt terrorists and too vulnerable to modern AAA/SAM in case of a major war. I`m sure the guys on the front line disagree with me

 

[FordGT90Concept]

USA apparently only has one A-29 and 20 were purchased to be given to the Afghani military.

A-29 is better suited for counter-insurgency where A-10 is counter-armor. A-10 remains the only aircraft that can defeat armor with bullets. Thing is, terrorists aren't known for driving tanks so it makes sense that they'd be looking into the lighter A-10, especially for Afghanistan.

I wonder if it is possible to design a danger-close air frame that is durable yet has a small RADAR crosssection. I get the distinct impression the Pentagon doesn't care. This extension, and previous extensions, occured at the behest of Congress moreso than the Pentagon.

 

[Bansaku]

One of my favourite stories: Here
And this: A-10 "Warthog" is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing.
And this: Crazy A-10 Pilot lands plane safely after hit by missile.

What other aircraft can get shot up as much as the A-10 and not only complete their mission, but make it back and land safely?! NONE!
Inexpensive, well armed, well armoured, widely respected, IMO keep retrofitting the A-10 much like the FA-18 Hornet (both planes are my personal favs). Why spend billions on new, unproven technology?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

They're in the drafting phase of finding a replacement for the A-10!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/a-10-warthog-replacement/index.html

I mean a real replacement (big gun on a robust airframe), not a multi-role-aircraft-filling-in-the-gap replacement.


I bet larger, more efficient engines with thrust vectoring are at the top of the list. I wonder if it will be a drone?

 

[Ithanul]

Yeah, the F-35 in the AirForce is considering a joke by most of us and even officers who fly think it is a joke to try using it and other fighter jets to replace the A-10's role.

They actually use the A-10's engine in jet troop tech school to train trainees on. (I know, I went through that tech school). Not a bad engine and pretty straight forward to work on, just better have small hands for certain safety wire spots on it.

A lot of the aircraft are still solid, it just the engines and avionics just need upgrading. They finally rolling out the engine upgrades to the C-5. Which now makes that jet pretty boss and way easier to work on. Never worked on that heavy, but remember talking to some jet troops who did. Heard it was pretty much a pain to work on the older non-upgraded C-5s. Plus, had a roommate who was Hydro troop who worked on C-5s, she previously worked the C-17s with the shop I use to be in. She said she actually for once had to learn how the full system worked and it pretty complex with the landing gear on it. But she was loving the challenge of working on that heavy.

I'm still waiting to see the replacement for the KC-10 refueler. Now, that a jet that needs a good replacement, plus considering the military still pays a lease on those. It actually breaks down more than the C-5. Then again, they are retrofitted commercial DC-10s.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Boeing KC-46 Pegasus (based on 767) is to begin replacing the KC-135s. Looks like you're stuck with KC-10s for a quite a while longer. :x

 

[Ithanul]

Boeing KC-46 Pegasus (based on 767) is to begin replacing the KC-135s. Looks like you're stuck with KC-10s for a quite a while longer. :x

O, there is a prototype flying about, I seen it one time by pure luck. Just can't remember what number they where calling it by. They even showed us the 3D model of the blasted thing a few years before. I had to take a double take when I saw it going down the ramp to the special pad area (usually airstrip area where planes carrying convicts, OSI, etc. would stay at). Darn, I remember seeing several interesting fighters, aircraft, etc. the six years I did on that big base on the west coast. My favorite was getting up close with the aircraft that carries the space shuttle. It was in the wash rake, and they let us get a good look at it up close.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It was probably a KC-767. They mostly ended up in other countries. It wasn't big enough for the Air Force. The KC-46 is a mutt having a 767-200 airframe, improved KC-10 refueling boom, and a 787 cockpit displays.

Yeah, the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft are trippy: a space plane on the back of an aircraft.

 

[Ithanul]

Yep, the shuttle carrier was passing through to go to its retirement spot. They where giving it a good wash down in the wash rack those few years back.

Ah, yep, the KC-767 does straight up look like what I saw. Was wondering what happen with that. Seems they can't make up their darn minds on what to replace the KC-10s with.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

KC-10s are fairly large aircraft. There really isn't any 2-3 engine aircraft available that could replace it. They'd have to jump up to four engine aircraft which, barring the A380, aren't very efficient. On top of that, the A380 isn't selling very well and it isn't economical to use as a refueling aircraft due to purchase cost. A better aircraft simply doesn't exist (yet).

There is massive demand for an aircraft with two enormous engines (very efficient) with 600,000-700,000 lb max take-off weight. I suspect Airbus and Boeing are working on something in that category now.

 

[Ithanul]

KC-10s are fairly large aircraft. There really isn't any 2-3 engine aircraft available that could replace it. They'd have to jump up to four engine aircraft which, barring the A380, aren't very efficient. On top of that, the A380 isn't selling very well and it isn't economical to use as a refueling aircraft due to purchase cost. A better aircraft simply doesn't exist (yet).

There is massive demand for an aircraft with two enormous engines (very efficient) with 600,000-700,000 lb max take-off weight. I suspect Airbus and Boeing are working on something in that category now.

That suppose to be the deal. Those two where to come up with a two engine monster refueler to replace the KC-10. As a former jet troop, the idea of only two engines is sweet.

Because crap trying to replace number two engine on the tail of a KC-10. That a several day event there.

Plus, it one of the few remaining heavies that require a flight engineer on board. C-17 actually can get away with needing on two people to fly it. Since the computers on it do majority of the control. The only crappy thing about that jet is if a computer decide it wants to be a pain and start throwing ghost faults everywhere. Had that lovely fun with computer that monitors the APU on one. Kind of funny we had a method for that aircraft we called Ctrl-Alt-Delete. Heheh, funny thing, it usually worked. Method usually either entail pulling two particular units out of the avionics rack and then shoving them back in or switching one out with a different C-17.