Why an F-35 will never be able to replace an A-10

[88E30M50]

I know it's been discussed before, and I know the A-10 is slated for the boneyard but here's a great interview with one of the aircraft's designers. Pierre Sprey was one of the key people in building the A-10.

The story of the A-10 and why the F-35 cannot replace it. [VIDEO]

 

[Work]

because

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, for all the same reasons the F-16 couldn't really replace it, either.

I'd love for a deal to be struck that transfers the A-10 to the Army. Or even the Marines.

 

[churchmouse]

Yeah, for all the same reasons the F-16 couldn't really replace it, either.

I'd love for a deal to be struck that transfers the A-10 to the Army. Or even the Marines.

The A-10 is one of the main reasons we have been successful in the last few "Wars" we have been involved in. Gun ships aside the A-10 is a deadly work horse. It flys slow and low. It rips the earth apart in front of it. It will take major punishment and gets back home.
Why the hell replace that piece of equipment. Why.

 

[Work]

The A-10 is one of the main reasons we have been successful in the last few "Wars" we have been involved in. Gun ships aside the A-10 is a deadly work horse. It flys slow and low. It rips the earth apart in front of it. It will take major punishment and gets back home.
Why the hell replace that piece of equipment. Why.

I find it interesting that they're pointing out how many redundancies are in the plane... so what do they replace it with? a modified Lawn Dart. a single engine plane is the worst thing they could replace the A10 with.

 

[HoughMade]

When you have a tool that works, you only replace it when you find a tool that works better, not just because the tool is old.

No tool works better for that job.

If they set out with a clean sheet of paper today with the same design criteria, they would end up with essentially the same plane, but with more sophisticated electronics....and there's no reason they can't take the present plane and do exactly that.

 

[Alamo]

The Air Force itself says the A-10 is better at the CAS mission; but not much more than that. FAC, CSAR, that's about it. In low threat environments, pretty much any airplane can fly the CAS mission if it can hit a certain point with bombs or bullets. The Air Force also notes that the A-10 flew only 20% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan - the rest covered by F-16s, F015E, B-52s, B-1s, etc. The USAF has limited dollars to go around, they want to spend them on airplanes that can do several missions, not just one or two. Armed drones will get better, will pick up CAS roles, and will do it cheaper and safer. Facts of budget life.

 

[Dead Duck]

Does this mean that our local police departments will be able to get a Warthog?

Cool!








I call shotgun for a "Ride Along".

 

[alabasterjar]

I know it's been discussed before, and I know the A-10 is slated for the boneyard but here's a great interview with one of the aircraft's designers. Pierre Sprey was one of the key people in building the A-10.

The story of the A-10 and why the F-35 cannot replace it. [VIDEO]

Got to see a simulation battlefield rescue with a Blackhawk chopper and a pair of A-10's at the Ft. Wayne airshow a few years back (the one & only show, to my knowledge). Spectacular display of power and agility. My sons (now 6 & 8) loved it, too...they still pick the A-10 as their favorite military aircraft.

 

[T.Lex]

The Air Force also notes that the A-10 flew only 20% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan - the rest covered by F-16s, F015E, B-52s, B-1s, etc. The USAF has limited dollars to go around, they want to spend them on airplanes that can do several missions, not just one or two. Armed drones will get better, will pick up CAS roles, and will do it cheaper and safer. Facts of budget life.

I, personally, don't consider B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, to be CAS platforms. They are worthy airframes, but true CAS is not carpetbombing or LGB dropping. It just isn't.

To put drones in that role, you either need alot more payload or a bunch more drones. But, you also need a human flying it (even if it is remotely). At least for the foreseeable future, algorithms aren't going to be able to figure out where to put the thing on the thing and pull the trigger.

 

[eric001]

I'm sure the Air Force would see giving the A-10's to the Army as a huge step backwards and as setting a reverse of precedent that they would find incredibly unpalatable. The Marines typically run on a very tight budget as it is, and I'm sure they'd love to have the aircraft, but would hate giving up something of their own just to get them even more.

Sadly, I think the A-10 will eventually be abandoned even though it is nearly perfect for the job it has done so well. Whether it's replaced by a fragile, overly expensive multi-role plane that could never equal the A-10 in CAS or is replaced by some combination of drones with varying capabilities, this day is inevitably coming. Just as the battleship was abandoned, so will the A-10 disappear from active duty.

 

[Leadeye]

Bring back the Skyraider SPADs.

 

[HoughMade]

I don't want to be in the same zip code as where anything with a "B" in front is being used for true CAS.

 

[T.Lex]

Just made a connection, though - I thought I heard that the USAF was increasing the number of AC-130 Spectre gunships. Although not as good as an A-10 for pure CAS, I could see that (or something similar) being a decent replacement for the insurgency brand of CAS that (Ukraine notwithstanding) we're most likely to see.

Ha - and how ironic is that: the A-10 was designed to fight Soviet tanks in a Fulda Gap scenario. Now that Russia is becoming more belligerent, we're doing away with them. I'm sure that's a coincidence.

 

[Hogwylde]

The A-10 is one of the main reasons we have been successful in the last few "Wars" we have been involved in. Gun ships aside the A-10 is a deadly work horse. It flys slow and low. It rips the earth apart in front of it. It will take major punishment and gets back home.
Why the hell replace that piece of equipment. Why.

The official reason is metal fatigue. Take a piece of aluminum (in this case, the main wing spar) and flex it. Do it again and again and again. Steel and it's alloys work hardens until it cracks and breaks. Aluminum just work hardens and then fails catastrophically. That's the primary reason that ALL aluminum aircraft are retired after a certain number of takeoffs/landings. Add to the fact that you are talking about high performance military aircraft that endure hi G loadings, and you significantly reduce the life of the airframe everytime you undergo high G loadings. They HAVE extended the life of the A-10 already by replacing the main wing spar and upgrading electronics, but in the end.......all the rest of the airframe would need replacing eventually.

My solution to the problem would be to commission Fairchild to build NEW A-10's with upgraded electronics at a fraction of the cost of F-35's. But the Air Force would never settle for last generations aircraft no matter if they were NOS.

 

[churchmouse]

The official reason is metal fatigue. Take a piece of aluminum (in this case, the main wing spar) and flex it. Do it again and again and again. Steel and it's alloys work hardens until it cracks and breaks. Aluminum just work hardens and then fails catastrophically. That's the primary reason that ALL aluminum aircraft are retired after a certain number of takeoffs/landings. Add to the fact that you are talking about high performance military aircraft that endure hi G loadings, and you significantly reduce the life of the airframe everytime you undergo high G loadings. They HAVE extended the life of the A-10 already by replacing the main wing spar and upgrading electronics, but in the end.......all the rest of the airframe would need replacing eventually.

My solution to the problem would be to commission Fairchild to build NEW A-10's with upgraded electronics at a fraction of the cost of F-35's. But the Air Force would never settle for last generations aircraft no matter if they were NOS.

Nothing else will fill the roll these planes do. Nothing. As you say....build new ones with current tech. and better engines. Keep scaring the living out of anything on the ground with pure ugly evil with eyes and teeth

 

[eric001]

My solution to the problem would be to commission Fairchild to build NEW A-10's with upgraded electronics at a fraction of the cost of F-35's. But the Air Force would never settle for last generations aircraft no matter if they were NOS.

Maybe if they redesigned the cockpit a little, put in a snazzy helmet-weapons system interface, and possibly made the whole thing out of titanium to make it similar in price to the other overpriced, overbudget offerings it might become a viable option. Or maybe give it some stealth RAM coating or something--that might help!

It seems that "cost-effective" has a different meaning in the defense industry nowadays.

 

[cobber]

Depends on who is lobbying and who they're connected to in the govt., no doubt.

 

[Disposable Heart]

My aunt used to be a technician in the Air Force during the Cold War days in Germany, worked solely on the A-10. The stories she had of what that plane could do and come back were startling. Engine fell off? No problem. West German military mistakes it for a Russian, shoves a rocket up it's bum, no problem, it'll get back home. Easy to maintain, easy to fix, easy to retrofit. She claimed that it took longer to change the magazines for the Gau than it did to replace an engine (expedited of course). Had to put a prop under the tail when working on the gun, as it would flop backwards if no support when gun was removed (claimed to have had a mate of hers find that out the hard way, no damage done to aircraft other than cosmetics).

She proudly said, that short of nukes being lobbed, as long as they could keep the A-10s they had on station running, fed and fresh drivers, NO TANK WOULD EVER CROSS THE LINES. NONE. Not if she had any say in it too.

Now, THAT was America. Not this techo-wuss crap that costs us an arm and a leg that could be taken out by sticking a fridge magnet on a box somewhere on it.

I would love to see the A-10 used by something like the Marines: Their "first in, last out" kill them all mission concept is fitted for the A-10, not the high tech, strike a single target then require hundreds of thousands in preventative maintenance and refit afterwards. F-35 is a poor tank buster, but pretty decent elsewhere. A-10 would fulfill the more "ground oriented" mission the Marine Corp has.

 

[indykid]

The official reason is metal fatigue. Take a piece of aluminum (in this case, the main wing spar) and flex it. Do it again and again and again. Steel and it's alloys work hardens until it cracks and breaks. Aluminum just work hardens and then fails catastrophically. That's the primary reason that ALL aluminum aircraft are retired after a certain number of takeoffs/landings. Add to the fact that you are talking about high performance military aircraft that endure hi G loadings, and you significantly reduce the life of the airframe everytime you undergo high G loadings. They HAVE extended the life of the A-10 already by replacing the main wing spar and upgrading electronics, but in the end.......all the rest of the airframe would need replacing eventually.

My solution to the problem would be to commission Fairchild to build NEW A-10's with upgraded electronics at a fraction of the cost of F-35's. But the Air Force would never settle for last generations aircraft no matter if they were NOS.

Very true about fatigue and the issues surrounding it in aluminum aircraft, but one point, the A-10's super redundancy includes the wing spar, or in the case of the A-10 spars as it has three. While I am not a materials specialist, I am sure having three spars share the loads this great aircraft sees aids greatly in increasing its true life expectancy.