Stealth 'Hog Might Save A-10?
Salute!
Thank you, ORAC. You nailed it about mission and scenario. The plane would have been outstanding in 'nam until the A-7D came along as long as it didn't go up north or even patrol the Trail after 1968 or so. Would not have needed that huge gun, either.
Way back in 1973-74 we combat SLUF and HUN veterans tried to convince USAF to limit the A-10 buy due to survivability and lack of avionics that the A-7D already had (and used in actual combat in the CAS and interdiction roles and even a bunch of missions "downtown" in broad daylight). Only mission we had less stellar performance than the "piston powered and slower version" of the A-10 did was CSAR. We had problems with turn radius in low weather among valleys and mountains that the A-1 was simply better due to geometry and physics. Could get to and find the survivor way faster than the A-1. But had trouble escorting Jolly in poor weather, low clouds in the valleys, etc. Initially, we thot the Hawg would have something at least as good as what the SLUF had for navigation and weapon delivery, maybe just half as good, but better than the A-1 or A-37 or F-100 or even the F-4.
But nooooooo....! USAF sold it to Congress asserting it could drop a dumb bomb down the pickle barrel with no fancy avionics, could kill a tank from over a half a mile away with the huge gun and a fixed pipper for aiming, and didn't need no steenking inertial or doppler system or a projected map for navigation, or even a decent HUD. It didn't even have a crude autopilot to help the pilot while he was using his paper map and sextant for navigation!
As you can tell, I am not a big fan of keeping the Hawg around except for COIN against bad guys with a fairly low air defense capability. The cost per plane for maintenance, part replacement, and so forth will grow and grow. The political environment and potential employment scenarios have changed for CAS a lot in the last 30 years, and frankly, only CAS missions I see for the U.S. is defending its embassies. Let the other guy defend his own forces and towns and..... and maybe the big aerospace folks will build, market and sell something to help. The days of dropping nape on the fences is ovr, and has been for a long time.
Gums opines...
Thank you, ORAC. You nailed it about mission and scenario. The plane would have been outstanding in 'nam until the A-7D came along as long as it didn't go up north or even patrol the Trail after 1968 or so. Would not have needed that huge gun, either.
Way back in 1973-74 we combat SLUF and HUN veterans tried to convince USAF to limit the A-10 buy due to survivability and lack of avionics that the A-7D already had (and used in actual combat in the CAS and interdiction roles and even a bunch of missions "downtown" in broad daylight). Only mission we had less stellar performance than the "piston powered and slower version" of the A-10 did was CSAR. We had problems with turn radius in low weather among valleys and mountains that the A-1 was simply better due to geometry and physics. Could get to and find the survivor way faster than the A-1. But had trouble escorting Jolly in poor weather, low clouds in the valleys, etc. Initially, we thot the Hawg would have something at least as good as what the SLUF had for navigation and weapon delivery, maybe just half as good, but better than the A-1 or A-37 or F-100 or even the F-4.
But nooooooo....! USAF sold it to Congress asserting it could drop a dumb bomb down the pickle barrel with no fancy avionics, could kill a tank from over a half a mile away with the huge gun and a fixed pipper for aiming, and didn't need no steenking inertial or doppler system or a projected map for navigation, or even a decent HUD. It didn't even have a crude autopilot to help the pilot while he was using his paper map and sextant for navigation!
As you can tell, I am not a big fan of keeping the Hawg around except for COIN against bad guys with a fairly low air defense capability. The cost per plane for maintenance, part replacement, and so forth will grow and grow. The political environment and potential employment scenarios have changed for CAS a lot in the last 30 years, and frankly, only CAS missions I see for the U.S. is defending its embassies. Let the other guy defend his own forces and towns and..... and maybe the big aerospace folks will build, market and sell something to help. The days of dropping nape on the fences is ovr, and has been for a long time.
Gums opines...
Salute!
Thank you, ORAC. You nailed it about mission and scenario. The plane would have been outstanding in 'nam until the A-7D came along as long as it didn't go up north or even patrol the Trail after 1968 or so. Would not have needed that huge gun, either.
Way back in 1973-74 we combat SLUF and HUN veterans tried to convince USAF to limit the A-10 buy due to survivability and lack of avionics that the A-7D already had (and used in actual combat in the CAS and interdiction roles and even a bunch of missions "downtown" in broad daylight). Only mission we had less stellar performance than the "piston powered and slower version" of the A-10 did was CSAR. We had problems with turn radius in low weather among valleys and mountains that the A-1 was simply better due to geometry and physics. Could get to and find the survivor way faster than the A-1. But had trouble escorting Jolly in poor weather, low clouds in the valleys, etc. Initially, we thot the Hawg would have something at least as good as what the SLUF had for navigation and weapon delivery, maybe just half as good, but better than the A-1 or A-37 or F-100 or even the F-4.
But nooooooo....! USAF sold it to Congress asserting it could drop a dumb bomb down the pickle barrel with no fancy avionics, could kill a tank from over a half a mile away with the huge gun and a fixed pipper for aiming, and didn't need no steenking inertial or doppler system or a projected map for navigation, or even a decent HUD. It didn't even have a crude autopilot to help the pilot while he was using his paper map and sextant for navigation!
As you can tell, I am not a big fan of keeping the Hawg around except for COIN against bad guys with a fairly low air defense capability. The cost per plane for maintenance, part replacement, and so forth will grow and grow. The political environment and potential employment scenarios have changed for CAS a lot in the last 30 years, and frankly, only CAS missions I see for the U.S. is defending its embassies. Let the other guy defend his own forces and towns and..... and maybe the big aerospace folks will build, market and sell something to help. The days of dropping nape on the fences is ovr, and has been for a long time.
Gums opines...
Thank you, ORAC. You nailed it about mission and scenario. The plane would have been outstanding in 'nam until the A-7D came along as long as it didn't go up north or even patrol the Trail after 1968 or so. Would not have needed that huge gun, either.
Way back in 1973-74 we combat SLUF and HUN veterans tried to convince USAF to limit the A-10 buy due to survivability and lack of avionics that the A-7D already had (and used in actual combat in the CAS and interdiction roles and even a bunch of missions "downtown" in broad daylight). Only mission we had less stellar performance than the "piston powered and slower version" of the A-10 did was CSAR. We had problems with turn radius in low weather among valleys and mountains that the A-1 was simply better due to geometry and physics. Could get to and find the survivor way faster than the A-1. But had trouble escorting Jolly in poor weather, low clouds in the valleys, etc. Initially, we thot the Hawg would have something at least as good as what the SLUF had for navigation and weapon delivery, maybe just half as good, but better than the A-1 or A-37 or F-100 or even the F-4.
But nooooooo....! USAF sold it to Congress asserting it could drop a dumb bomb down the pickle barrel with no fancy avionics, could kill a tank from over a half a mile away with the huge gun and a fixed pipper for aiming, and didn't need no steenking inertial or doppler system or a projected map for navigation, or even a decent HUD. It didn't even have a crude autopilot to help the pilot while he was using his paper map and sextant for navigation!
As you can tell, I am not a big fan of keeping the Hawg around except for COIN against bad guys with a fairly low air defense capability. The cost per plane for maintenance, part replacement, and so forth will grow and grow. The political environment and potential employment scenarios have changed for CAS a lot in the last 30 years, and frankly, only CAS missions I see for the U.S. is defending its embassies. Let the other guy defend his own forces and towns and..... and maybe the big aerospace folks will build, market and sell something to help. The days of dropping nape on the fences is ovr, and has been for a long time.
Gums opines...
- Doesn't the hog find it's niche wide open to go truffle hunting'?
- What was an oversell on simplicity in the 70's, is that not now exactly what helps UF man up a platform that is simple and has a fair measure of survivability?
- Isn't lend-lease of hogs not a great way to remove them from the USAF inventory as they sure do seem to suffer from an orphan syndrome, and they have never been offered to the guys who would love them, the marines... ?
Better unmanned CAS, LO, etc... but that isn't on todays menu.
Swapping between soviet and western AI's is annoying, but not impossible, they are intuitive in their own way but it does take some thinking when stuff goes weird.
Guest
As a comparison the Stuka was useless without air superiority or just air cover. With it it was very effective and much feared.
The A10 would be no exception. A10's would be deployed as part of a combined arms strategy where they are deployed under an umbrella of air and electronic cover.
Deployed in the correct environment I think they would be particularly deadly.
The A10 would be no exception. A10's would be deployed as part of a combined arms strategy where they are deployed under an umbrella of air and electronic cover.
Deployed in the correct environment I think they would be particularly deadly.
As a comparison the Stuka was useless without air superiority or just air cover. With it it was very effective and much feared.
The A10 would be no exception. A10's would be deployed as part of a combined arms strategy where they are deployed under an umbrella of air and electronic cover.
Deployed in the correct environment I think they would be particularly deadly.
The A10 would be no exception. A10's would be deployed as part of a combined arms strategy where they are deployed under an umbrella of air and electronic cover.
Deployed in the correct environment I think they would be particularly deadly.
Imho, Uxb99 has a point with his focus on unmanned CAS vehicles
As a comparison the Stuka was useless without air superiority or just air cover. With it it was very effective and much feared.
The A10 would be no exception. A10's would be deployed as part of a combined arms strategy where they are deployed under an umbrella of air and electronic cover.
Deployed in the correct environment I think they would be particularly deadly.
The A10 would be no exception. A10's would be deployed as part of a combined arms strategy where they are deployed under an umbrella of air and electronic cover.
Deployed in the correct environment I think they would be particularly deadly.
Guest
The Frogfoot's in Ukraine seem to be surviving in what is a challenging environment.
If the US was involved are we saying the A10's wouldn't survive? I think they would and be having a pretty damaging time on the Russians.
If the US was involved are we saying the A10's wouldn't survive? I think they would and be having a pretty damaging time on the Russians.
This from the DM on the subject of the Frogfoot:
Heart-stopping Top Gun-style video shows Ukrainian fighter jet evading Russian missile lock | Daily Mail Online
Heart-stopping Top Gun-style video shows Ukrainian fighter jet evading Russian missile lock | Daily Mail Online
It is mostly when one tries to attack a military target that there is trouble...
Thread Starter
Senate Panel Allows A-10 Cuts, But Not F-22s
By Greg HadleyAfter years of blocking the Air Force from retiring A-10 attack aircraft, the Senate Armed Services Committee will allow the service to proceed, but not with a new initiative to retire older F-22 Raptor air superiority jets. It also agreed to add seven more jets to USAF's request for F-35 fighters, and overruled the service on its plan to trim the HH-60 Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter buy.
- Ed
