It's my understanding that the original YA10-B conversion was achieved by inserting a 'plug' immediately forward of the bulkhead twixt fuselage and cockpit, with the structure ahead then being somewhat modified.

I also assume that, had the night / adverse variant achieved production, this arrangement would have been 'tidied' somewhat (the sole YA10-B has something of a 'patchwork' look to it). One would suppose that, should such an idea ever resurface, new cockpits would, by far be the better solution. Nonetheless, the structure aft (again, by my understanding) remained the same.

All of this would suggest to me, that such a process would be relatively straightforward, particularly if the jigs still exist - although I assume that you'll now attempt to disabuse me of this idea? :)

I've had a look at the family model, actually like the looks. My issue with the ease statement is that according to data that was a pre-production model concerning me whether all mission essential equipment was accommodated as it was likely a demonstrator only. Same concern as to whether modern kit could easily be accommodated minus a major structural modification that takes it out of the realm of cheap and quick. As to the jigs, I have no clue, but have to factor in this is an aircraft that went out of production a number of decades ago.

Now we both know that if you write a big enough check, it could be fitted with two seats, but at what cost with regards to capabilities?

It does have a certain ugly beauty, doesn't it?

Well, as I said when first raising the issue of a twin seater - sure, it could be done, but with the recent upgrades & availability of podded tech being as it is, why would you need to?

I can't help but think that the 'looker' in the postulated A-29 / AT-6 IS the ISR fit! Those teeny little gunnery targets aren't going to be able to haul much in the way of sensors as well as weapons - again, not such a problem for the A-10.

Wrt the jigs, the A-10 went out of production in 1984, Fairchild going out of business in 2003. Not to say there wasn't a visionary who decided to purchase all the bits needed should new frames be needed.

I know the jigs survived in to the 90s as a certainty - there were attempts to sell the line wholesale to Turkey for a few years from the late eighties onward.

I'd assumed that Boeing inherited them - they certainly seem capable of churning out the new wing sets with the minimum of fuss, at least.

Quite possibly, which circles back to the write a big enough check thought.

But again, there are 300 + of the things already in service & upgraded (or being so). On my assumption that there really isn't an operationally valid reason (on the A-10, at least) for the second seat (remember, I've only said could, not should), that 'big enough cheque' can be spent keeping 'em in service for twenty odd years, instead.

Certainly, that cheque would be a lot smaller than the one written against a fleet of 'whatever' (and all associated costs therein), which may end up either sold off or in the boneyard before they've been amortised. I'm also quite sure that trying to replace the A-10 with the F-35 will be seen as pure folly soon enough, too.

JG54,

I know that Evalu8ter is an air power professional. He gets exactly what OA-X is for.

Your dogged evangelism on behalf of the of the the A-10A and apparent inability to 'get' the OA-X makes me wonder whether you're an ex-A-10 man, or an enthusiast?

I don't mean to be rude, just asking…..

Jacko, I have no connection with the A-10 whatsoever, not even as a 'flag bearer' per se, save for acknowledging that it does what it does very well, and is already extant. Nor am I an air power professional.

I get, fully, what OA-X is for - you'll recall from earlier posts that if we're looking at this low - end on the spectrum of capabilities, my gut and intellectual belief, is that OV-10X seems the better fit and also seemingly has more utility.

What I Don't get, is WHY OA-X IS.

I believe it to be a flawed premise which may (or may not) result in the procurement of a potentially short - lived 'one trick pony', with no utility outside of a finely calculated set of parameters.

Let's see how the contenders perform on trial, I'm sure these 'light logistic tail' wonders will throw up all kinds of problems inconvenient to the desired requirement / specification. Even if they don't, I'm still left wondering, if costs are the driving consideration, just how much 'bang for the buck' or value these wee beasties will have produced by their OSD. Personally, I feel the whole life programme costs will be far, far in excess of those extra logistics, that extra fuel & associated costs an already inducted type (A-10) would incur over the same duration.

[QUOTE=JG54;9804942]I'd agree that, at the 'lo' end of the spectrum, a modernised OV - 10 seems a pretty good choice. Indeed, I seem to recall that a couple have recently been flying operationally to prove the validity & concept.

I don't know much about proof off concept. There are however at least two in very active daily use with the Philippine Air Force. They are often seen on TV earning their keep attacking the nutters in Marawi.

Most people get the need.

And the waste of resources on something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHqaXwb27SI
(F-15E's bombing a couple of bad guys)

But I don't see where a block of funding will come from. It seems the USAF has eyes bigger than it's belly.

Where in the queue for money will it come WRT B-2, T-X, K-46, F-35 and the keeping of the 'legacy' aircraft going as these are (to some degree) all late and over cost?

A light CAS machine or F-22 back into production?

I also find it interesting how the USMC has moved in the opposite direction.

That proposed modernized OV1 of a few years back comes to mind.

How about that huge lot of T28s semi disassembled that was for sale a while back?........fit them with turboprops?

Sounds like two sub-billion dollar ways to explore for a solution.