Not So Stealthy Son of A-10

[xcraftllc]

https://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/April%202015/April%2024%202015/Not-So-Stealthy-Son-of-A-10.aspx

Ok so if they're seriously considering this, then it makes me wonder; just how expensive would it be to reset/SLE/update the existing A-10 fleet, since to me that should end up being far cheaper. Especially when you consider all the logistics and training involved in implementing a new air frame program. I mean, are the A-10 air frames just to old to work with at all? I think someone said in another thread here that someone (Boeing I think) basically has a modernized A-10 design that could be built new. Not the scorpion or anything, basically the A-10, just not the exact plane since obviously all the plans and tooling for that are long gone. Given the current state of acquisitions though, such a program could very well end up being a long and drawn out mess anyway.

I guess what I'm saying is; the A-10 is great at CAS and Attack in general, is proven, and is already in place. It is also the cheapest manned CAS-capable platform out there (with the Viper being a close second). Imagine what it could do with fully modernized engines and avionics? Wouldn't that be much more practical in this age of budget constraints?

I mean I really don't know, I'm sure as hell not saying I know more than Gen Welsh. Maybe there's more to it, and then there's also the whole political/economic mess that goes along with such decisions...

Edited April 24, 2015 by xcraftllc

[StoleIt]

I think at this point SLEP-ing the A-10 is a bandaid solution. There are no more A-10 wings left in the boneyard last I heard so next time an airframe issue crops up there is no "easy" fix.

It is refreshing to hear the CSAF talk about an A-10 replacement (that isn't the F-35). Granted, those are just words and there is nothing he can do to make the program happen...that's up to our elected leadership.

And am I the only person that thinks the Scorpion is a hideous looking jet? Not X-32 ugly...but still pretty bad.

[HeyEng]

Yea you could keep the same mold lines but build it just like the original with traditional aluminum and rivets, little or no carbon fiber (except for armor plate). Subcontract major components to companies like Cessna (who has experience making parts for Boeing). If you stick to the original specs and don't try to gold plate it (a difficult task for Big Blue) it should be very cost effective.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[xcraftllc]

And am I the only person that thinks the Scorpion is a hideous looking jet? Not X-32 ugly...but still pretty bad.

Oh it is. And tiny and composite and two seater. I think it's the wrong direction to go in. Light support aircraft like that might work for a small nation with limited security needs and infrastructure, but I think we can do better.

Lol I pray we'll never see something as ugly as the X-32 again.

Edited April 24, 2015 by xcraftllc

[JarheadBoom]

Until I saw the X-32B on static display at Pax River two years ago, I had managed to forget just how ugly that thing was...

[pawnman]

I remember thinking, when I heard Gen Welsh propose this..."Don't we already have an attack plane that is highly effective in permissive environments?"

Someone explain to me why we're willing to canx the A-10 because "it isn't survivable in high-threat environments", while at the same time, look for a "light attack aircraft for low threat environments"?

[tac airlifter]

Someone explain to me why we're willing to canx the A-10 because "it isn't survivable in high-threat environments", while at the same time, look for a "light attack aircraft for low threat environments"?

A light attack aircraft that is cheaper than an A10, quieter than an A10, has a longer loiter than an A10, smaller MX footprint and less recognizable ramp profile, has more & better radios than an A10 and better off board data link and FMV capability and ability to match SPIs... Would be a very useful asset in our various wars.

That said, the move to CANX the A10 appears to be all about politics and money, not logic.

[di1630]

Welsh and the USAF have ZERO desire for any A-10 replacement. Any talk of one is simple politics (aka adding the A to F/A-22 to get it through) to make it look like they care to further expedite the A-10 divestment. When the A-10 is finally gone, you won't hear anything about the CAS/light attack/Coin mission. Smoke and mirrors.

[Jughead]

(aka adding the A to F/A-22 to get it through)

I was at Edwards when that nonsense was going on. Reminds me of a good laugh we had a wing safety day: the F-22 (pardon me, "F/A-22") test squadron guys were presenting. They started with an "aircraft recognition slide," where they had a composite pic of a bunch of the different aircraft the wing was currently flying on it. Left it up for 15 seconds, then asked "How many aircraft could you identify?". They then answered their own question in order: first was the F/A-22; then the F/A-16; then the F/A-38, then the F/A-135, then the F/A....

[Clark Griswold]

Welsh and the USAF have ZERO desire for any A-10 replacement. Any talk of one is simple politics (aka adding the A to F/A-22 to get it through) to make it look like they care to further expedite the A-10 divestment. When the A-10 is finally gone, you won't hear anything about the CAS/light attack/Coin mission. Smoke and mirrors.

2

This may be off the mark but I think the AF is setting itself up for a nasty surprise with some of the VTOL designs coming up that the Army and maybe the USMC may procure, attack variants are proposed and they may take the CAS mission by a fait acompli.

Watch the Valor 280 sales video and the Army is planning on building the capacity to have its own CAS in an attack tilt rotor variant, who needs the AF for CAS now?

The performance is pretty good - 280 KTAS, 500-800 NM combat radius, 12k useful load - not sure if the attack model would mirror that as I think those are the utility specs but probably pretty close.

If that attack variant of the utility tiltrotor is successful, following the historical model of the attack Huey then the Cobra, I think the USAF is going to get cut out of a mission.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[dvlax40]

So give up what could quite possibly be the last manned mission that will log real time (save for the raptor bros logging 0.shit hours per month for currency) smart.

[brabus]

So give up what could quite possibly be the last manned mission that will log real time (save for the raptor bros logging 0.shit hours per month for currency) smart.

I don't follow...

[Clark Griswold]

So give up what could quite possibly be the last manned mission that will log real time (save for the raptor bros logging 0.shit hours per month for currency) smart.

I don't follow...

Ditto.

Not sure what the question is.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[xcraftllc]

2

This may be off the mark but I think the AF is setting itself up for a nasty surprise with some of the VTOL designs coming up that the Army and maybe the USMC may procure, attack variants are proposed and they may take the CAS mission by a fait acompli.

Watch the Valor 280 sales video and the Army is planning on building the capacity to have its own CAS in an attack tilt rotor variant, who needs the AF for CAS now?

The performance is pretty good - 280 KTAS, 500-800 NM combat radius, 12k useful load - not sure if the attack model would mirror that as I think those are the utility specs but probably pretty close.

If that attack variant of the utility tiltrotor is successful, following the historical model of the attack Huey then the Cobra, I think the USAF is going to get cut out of a mission.

I used to think the same thing but frankly, just being real, with the current state of research/acquisition/design, I highly doubt we'll see Future Vertical Lift designs making much of an appearance any time soon (still something to consider in the long term). The last three major air frame programs from the Army are basically failures. The Comanche, the ARH-70, and the Lakota, with the latter being technically "successful" but nothing that it was supposed to be, it's not even combat deployable (due to it's fragile design). Even successful programs like the V-22 ended up being much more expensive and harder to develop than they were supposed to be. I think FVL is a great thing that the Army really needs but it's a long way from replacing AF CAS, and even then, there's nothing like having a few good bombs to play with in the stack.

[dvlax40]

My point was we are shit canning platforms/missions that are GOING to be the primary engagements for the foreseeable future. Or do we want to fly the wings off all the remaining -22s dropping bombs on toyotas?

[Clark Griswold]

A light attack aircraft that is cheaper than an A10, quieter than an A10, has a longer loiter than an A10, smaller MX footprint and less recognizable ramp profile, has more & better radios than an A10 and better off board data link and FMV capability and ability to match SPIs...

There's an app for that

I used to think the same thing but frankly, just being real, with the current state of research/acquisition/design, I highly doubt we'll see Future Vertical Lift designs making much of an appearance any time soon (still something to consider in the long term). The last three major air frame programs from the Army are basically failures. The Comanche, the ARH-70, and the Lakota, with the latter being technically "successful" but nothing that it was supposed to be, it's not even combat deployable (due to it's fragile design). Even successful programs like the V-22 ended up being much more expensive and harder to develop than they were supposed to be. I think FVL is a great thing that the Army really needs but it's a long way from replacing AF CAS, and even then, there's nothing like having a few good bombs to play with in the stack.

Good point but compared to the AF and our typical pattern of either over thinking the wheel (KC-46, F-35, etc.) or only believing a gold-plated system is the only viable option I think the Army has more common sense or less money which keeps them in check. Our mistakes of late have way to many zeros at the end of them.

My point was we are shit canning platforms/missions that are GOING to be the primary engagements for the foreseeable future. Or do we want to fly the wings off all the remaining -22s dropping bombs on toyotas?

Copy - my answer to your rhetorical question is yes, we will fly a 5th gen fighter to drop a JDAM on a Hilux with 4 dudes and some AK's, don't forget the two tankers to keep the fighters on station, the JSTARS and his tanker, the Reapers and their FOB, etc...

If there is a right way to do something and an expensive way to do something, we'll figure out a way to do it both ways.

[pawnman]

There's an app for that

Good point but compared to the AF and our typical pattern of either over thinking the wheel (KC-46, F-35, etc.) or only believing a gold-plated system is the only viable option I think the Army has more common sense or less money which keeps them in check. Our mistakes of late have way to many zeros at the end of them.

Copy - my answer to your rhetorical question is yes, we will fly a 5th gen fighter to drop a JDAM on a Hilux with 4 dudes and some AK's, don't forget the two tankers to keep the fighters on station, the JSTARS and his tanker, the Reapers and their FOB, etc...

If there is a right way to do something and an expensive way to do something, we'll figure out a way to do it both ways.

Even though my ACSC class, completed during a 12-hour shift, suggested that maybe flying a $150 million aircraft from a $2.5 billion carrier to drop a $200,000 JDAM on one insurgent with an AK-47 may not be cost effective.

But hey, maybe I missed something in the reading.

[sky_king]

Copy - my answer to your rhetorical question is yes, we will fly a 5th gen fighter to drop a JDAM on a Hilux with 4 dudes and some AK's, don't forget the two tankers to keep the fighters on station, the JSTARS and his tanker, the Reapers and their FOB, etc...

Well, as long as a JSTARS is involved, my job is secure. I'll vote for that.

[Clark Griswold]

Even though my ACSC class, completed during a 12-hour shift, suggested that maybe flying a $150 million aircraft from a $2.5 billion carrier to drop a $200,000 JDAM on one insurgent with an AK-47 may not be cost effective.

But hey, maybe I missed something in the reading.

You have to un-hide the text that explains we only plan to fight circa 1990's Desert Storm massive air campaign style. You HAVE to have a $1 million logistical chain to support every mission you fly. If you don't, you might give Congress the idea, that - gasp - we might need to buy some weapons that don't cost a $50,000 an hour to fly and are tailored to fight these low intensity long term conflicts.

Well, as long as a JSTARS is involved, my job is secure. I'll vote for that.

Don't worry, your job is not going anywhere. JSTARS is funded for another 5 years but if I were king, then I would have the USAF fly the Sentinel R1 to fly something modern.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[JarheadBoom]

The last three major air frame programs from the Army are basically failures. The Comanche, the ARH-70, and the Lakota, with the latter being technically "successful" but nothing that it was supposed to be, it's not even combat deployable (due to it's fragile design).

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but LUH came after Comanche was canx'd and freed up all those dollars, yes? The LUH program, from the start, was never meant to be combat deployable. It's entire purpose was to do CONUS/permissive environment work, freeing more 'Hawks to be utilized for deployments and no-shit assault support.

[Breckey]

Except the Lakota has a shitty payload for a lot of its missions. As a FLAT IRON bird at Rucker it can't pick up a full Huey crew that PLd, unlike the mighty UH- 1 it replaced. And they look ugly.

[Lawman]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but LUH came after Comanche was canx'd and freed up all those dollars, yes? The LUH program, from the start, was never meant to be combat deployable. It's entire purpose was to do CONUS/permissive environment work, freeing more 'Hawks to be utilized for deployments and no-shit assault support.

The Comanche money was repurposed into the F model Chinook and M model Black Hawk and speeding up the retirement/rebuild of A model Apaches.

Lakota was its own terrible program entirely. To buy an off the shelf non deployable aircraft to replace both UH-1 and 58 A/Cs in service and to give the states a more economical helicopter to do SAR/Medevac over the Hawk. But once we got a hold of it we ran it in the most ass way possible... And now it's becoming our primary trainer as we retire the 67 fleet.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Lawman

[JarheadBoom]

How big is a Huey crew at Rucker? I've personally seen .civ medical-configured EC145s in a 2-pilot operation, carrying 2 med crew and 2 patients with half a bag of gas.

I don't know the particulars of the UH-72 cabin configuration, but a fully geared-up .civ medical cabin adds several hundred pounds to the basic weight of a .civ EC145.

Concur with ugly.

[Breckey]

Usually at least three. The MEDEVAC configured Huey could carry three litters and almost 1.5k additional payload with full bags

[Lawman]

How big is a Huey crew at Rucker? I've personally seen .civ medical-configured EC145s in a 2-pilot operation, carrying 2 med crew and 2 patients with half a bag of gas.

I don't know the particulars of the UH-72 cabin configuration, but a fully geared-up .civ medical cabin adds several hundred pounds to the basic weight of a .civ EC145.

Concur with ugly.

There are two students and one IP in pretty much every TH-67 that flies that day. Everything except Apache is also carrying three dudes.

That was the big flub replacing Flat Iron Huey's with Lakota. There was the idea that if you responded to a crash and had 3 ambulatory patients you would get to pick 2. The fuzzy logic of justification being that Flat Iron spends 99% of its time being a taxi for broken airplane crews instead of actually doing Medevac.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Lawman