At what level of intensity would that go by the board? I can't see it as being workable in, e.g., resisting a N. Korean invasion of the south. You could lose battles waiting for authority. It seems to assume a high degree of overmatch.
Importance of A-10 Thunderbolt (warthog)
- Thread starter der_Master
- Start date
I would imagine that once everything went hot - and esp in a Nth-Sth Korean imbroglio that they'd turn off a lot of the rules and turn some areas into declared zones - ie enter a zone and the assumption is that you're a valid military target and can be engaged at will.... bearing in mind the caveats still wrapped around Berne Convention obligations etc.....
Over at F16.net, poster twintwinsingle is an experienced A-10C pilot and shares his perspective on various aricraft and other aspects of the CAS mission.
There are lots of prop planes operating over the battlefield right now in Afghanistan, manned and unmanned, at similar altitudes to an AT-6. Not much in the way of shootdowns happening for fixed wing in Afghanistan. Is an AT-6 more vulnerable than an A-10, F-16, F-35, etc.? Of course it is. Can it offer superb support to our troops, in a variety of theaters, for not much impact on the US budget? I say it can. Why have none of our coalition members gone after one? Historically, none of our partners have gone after CAS jets either. No FMS for the A-10 back in the day. Nobody, including the US, wanted it. Is there a market for a COIN aircraft in smaller countries? Yes. Countries have already fielded the ST as a COIN aircraft. Why? Because they need a CAS airplane and don't have the money for a "big" CAS jet, like the A-10. Sound familiar? Sounds just like the US to me.
We need a CAS airplane because we keep sending our troops and special operators into these small countries to fight low intensity, low threat to air ops conflicts and we only have 350 30+ year old A-10's that will need replaced soon. We can't replace them with a better A-10. Can't afford it. We can afford to buy 200-300 AT-6's, ST's or OV-10's, though, and leverage the cost savings that would come from several other (poorer) countries jumpink on the buy also.
Popcorn, what would the A-10 replacement of the early 90's been, if I were king? Honestly, the A-10 airframe would be a great start. A rugged airplane with a high-lift wing and a 30mm gun. Where the A-10 could have been greatly improved upon was in the area of engines, structural ruggedness and avionics. Whether this could have been best accomplished by an all-new design or simply building new A-10's that incorporated the lessons learned from the A-10A, I don't know. The A-10D SuperHog! Several aspects of the A-10, as it was built, are prone to stress cracks over time. Much money has been spent over the years (as early as the mid 90's) to SLEP the Hog and deal with these cracks. A new-build jet could have had all of those problems engineered out. Digital avionics (similar to the Strike Eagle) would have improved the reliability of the A-10's analog suite. Also, this would have allowed the jet to "self diagnose" system issue's for MX, as the Strike Eagle and Super Hornet can do, to an extent. This saves MX time and improves reliability. The Hog does not have this capability at all, even the A-10C. Incorporation of 1760 connectivity to the stations would have allowed incorporation of LANTIRN (the system in vogue in the early '90's) and opened up the weapons that the jet could carry. Lastly, the small turbofan techology of the early '90's was leaps and bounds better that that of the early '70's. An almost 100% increase in thrust with a reduction in fuel consumption was possible as early as 20 yrs ago. This would have been the real game-changer. A new build 'Hog, without the stress crack issue of the A, and with double the thrust would have allowed a loaded Hog to operate from a 4000 ft strip with full-fuel, fly 50-75 kts faster to the fight, refuel 10000 ft higher, climb back up to attack altitude in 1/2 the time, and on and on. That jet would have been great. Many of those gains have been made with the A-10C program. However, the biggest one (engines) is VERY expensive and the airframe, as previously mentioned, would not deal well with the added power due to its propensity for stress cracks.
But, that jet will NEVER exist, as great as it would have been.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several threads in this discussion have highlighted the limitations of any COIN aircraft in a medium threat, DS scenario. It also highlights the inherent risk of the CAS mission when there is a credible threat close to the friendly forces. Unlike AI, where a jet is flying a strike route and likely won't pass over the same area twice, a CAS pilot is in the same general area for many minutes if not hours. He can mitigate soem risk by being unpredictable in where he hold, how he attacks the target, etc., but when it comes down to it, the enemy knows where he'll be...close to the troops he's supporting. This has resulted in several lost Hornets, Harriers, Vipers and Hogs over the years as well.
Opposed CAS is dangerous by its very nature...the necessity to be close enough to the supported forces to evaluate the situation and prosecute the attack. In a perfect world, with the right digital systems in place, the situation can be discerned from greater stand-off and the attack prosecuted from there. However, in situations where that stuff fails or the people are not so-equipped (as happens very frequently in Afghanistan and Iraq), there is always the potential to have to get in closer to figure things out. Therein lies the danger and that can never, realistically, be planned out of the CAS equation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing proposal for new-build OV-10. Looks pretty interesting. M230 30mm gun from the Apache. Still no speed demon, but the USAF has thousands of hours of operating these things (with smaller motors) from austere fields. I know a few former OV-10 guys from the AF and they said the Marine OV-10D was pretty sweet, compared with the USAF's A-model. Modern sensors and CM suites should make it very viable in the low intensity COIN conflicts. My 2 pennies.
There are lots of prop planes operating over the battlefield right now in Afghanistan, manned and unmanned, at similar altitudes to an AT-6. Not much in the way of shootdowns happening for fixed wing in Afghanistan. Is an AT-6 more vulnerable than an A-10, F-16, F-35, etc.? Of course it is. Can it offer superb support to our troops, in a variety of theaters, for not much impact on the US budget? I say it can. Why have none of our coalition members gone after one? Historically, none of our partners have gone after CAS jets either. No FMS for the A-10 back in the day. Nobody, including the US, wanted it. Is there a market for a COIN aircraft in smaller countries? Yes. Countries have already fielded the ST as a COIN aircraft. Why? Because they need a CAS airplane and don't have the money for a "big" CAS jet, like the A-10. Sound familiar? Sounds just like the US to me.
We need a CAS airplane because we keep sending our troops and special operators into these small countries to fight low intensity, low threat to air ops conflicts and we only have 350 30+ year old A-10's that will need replaced soon. We can't replace them with a better A-10. Can't afford it. We can afford to buy 200-300 AT-6's, ST's or OV-10's, though, and leverage the cost savings that would come from several other (poorer) countries jumpink on the buy also.
Popcorn, what would the A-10 replacement of the early 90's been, if I were king? Honestly, the A-10 airframe would be a great start. A rugged airplane with a high-lift wing and a 30mm gun. Where the A-10 could have been greatly improved upon was in the area of engines, structural ruggedness and avionics. Whether this could have been best accomplished by an all-new design or simply building new A-10's that incorporated the lessons learned from the A-10A, I don't know. The A-10D SuperHog! Several aspects of the A-10, as it was built, are prone to stress cracks over time. Much money has been spent over the years (as early as the mid 90's) to SLEP the Hog and deal with these cracks. A new-build jet could have had all of those problems engineered out. Digital avionics (similar to the Strike Eagle) would have improved the reliability of the A-10's analog suite. Also, this would have allowed the jet to "self diagnose" system issue's for MX, as the Strike Eagle and Super Hornet can do, to an extent. This saves MX time and improves reliability. The Hog does not have this capability at all, even the A-10C. Incorporation of 1760 connectivity to the stations would have allowed incorporation of LANTIRN (the system in vogue in the early '90's) and opened up the weapons that the jet could carry. Lastly, the small turbofan techology of the early '90's was leaps and bounds better that that of the early '70's. An almost 100% increase in thrust with a reduction in fuel consumption was possible as early as 20 yrs ago. This would have been the real game-changer. A new build 'Hog, without the stress crack issue of the A, and with double the thrust would have allowed a loaded Hog to operate from a 4000 ft strip with full-fuel, fly 50-75 kts faster to the fight, refuel 10000 ft higher, climb back up to attack altitude in 1/2 the time, and on and on. That jet would have been great. Many of those gains have been made with the A-10C program. However, the biggest one (engines) is VERY expensive and the airframe, as previously mentioned, would not deal well with the added power due to its propensity for stress cracks.
But, that jet will NEVER exist, as great as it would have been.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several threads in this discussion have highlighted the limitations of any COIN aircraft in a medium threat, DS scenario. It also highlights the inherent risk of the CAS mission when there is a credible threat close to the friendly forces. Unlike AI, where a jet is flying a strike route and likely won't pass over the same area twice, a CAS pilot is in the same general area for many minutes if not hours. He can mitigate soem risk by being unpredictable in where he hold, how he attacks the target, etc., but when it comes down to it, the enemy knows where he'll be...close to the troops he's supporting. This has resulted in several lost Hornets, Harriers, Vipers and Hogs over the years as well.
Opposed CAS is dangerous by its very nature...the necessity to be close enough to the supported forces to evaluate the situation and prosecute the attack. In a perfect world, with the right digital systems in place, the situation can be discerned from greater stand-off and the attack prosecuted from there. However, in situations where that stuff fails or the people are not so-equipped (as happens very frequently in Afghanistan and Iraq), there is always the potential to have to get in closer to figure things out. Therein lies the danger and that can never, realistically, be planned out of the CAS equation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing proposal for new-build OV-10. Looks pretty interesting. M230 30mm gun from the Apache. Still no speed demon, but the USAF has thousands of hours of operating these things (with smaller motors) from austere fields. I know a few former OV-10 guys from the AF and they said the Marine OV-10D was pretty sweet, compared with the USAF's A-model. Modern sensors and CM suites should make it very viable in the low intensity COIN conflicts. My 2 pennies.
If we are designing the perfect 'in-country' CAS jet then I wouldn’t just settle with new engines on an A-10. But rather go with a new wing and fuselage matched to the better generation of high bypass engines to enable higher speed. Nothing extreme but up to 600 knots on the deck so as to allow high speed, without audio or visual warning passes. Kind of like a YF-17 but with bigger wings and the nose full of the GAU-8. With the low burning engines you could still cruise at 300 knots for four hours while carrying 6,000 lbs of weapons (1,150 x 30mm, 6 x GBU-12/38).
Last edited:
I always like the OV-10X for COIN due to it's expandability factor. All that room inside offers some interesting unique abilities. There was even work done to mount a mag-fed 106mm recoilless rifle.
My thoughts on updating this concept would be to replace the 20mm turret with a retractable 2.75 Hydra and/or 5in Zuni pod. With the use of laser guided rounds (both in 2.75 and 5in) very accurate fire can be concentrated in a small area without the need for the OV-10 to make multiple passes (as with wing mounted pods) due to it's ability to circle the target from a distance and fire at an angle.
The cargo area can even facilitate in-flight reloads of the turret-pod (or switching from 2.75 to 5 for more punch).
My thoughts on updating this concept would be to replace the 20mm turret with a retractable 2.75 Hydra and/or 5in Zuni pod. With the use of laser guided rounds (both in 2.75 and 5in) very accurate fire can be concentrated in a small area without the need for the OV-10 to make multiple passes (as with wing mounted pods) due to it's ability to circle the target from a distance and fire at an angle.
The cargo area can even facilitate in-flight reloads of the turret-pod (or switching from 2.75 to 5 for more punch).
The OV-10 was designed for a concept originated back in 1960 very much based on WWII experience and technology limitations. The room in the back seemed like a great idea until helicopters proved their mettle and dominated this utility role. In the end the only use for an aircraft like the OV-10 is FAC, recce and light strike. And while better at these missions than a converted training aircraft it is still hampered by all the stuff built into it so it can takeoff and land from a road beside an infantry battalion HQ and carry 44 Gallon drums of fuel in the back.
Rocket version of a gunship (a rocketship!). The idea has some merit though a retractable launcher would be hard to fit into the back of an OV-10 but could be adapted to under wing launchers, providing them with a trainable feature. It wouldn’t need to be a precise training as there is a reasonable +/- left and right that these rockets can fly to. The US Army worked on some similar trainable launchers for unguided rockets in the 60s called WASP. In the end they went with the 40mm grenade launcher for that mission. But a 70mm laser guided rocket launcher puts a shell on target similar in striking power to an 81mm mortar but without the weight and complexity of a gun mechanism and precise turret training.
Loading these rockets is actually a pretty touchy thing to do and I doubt you could do it in the tiny back room of a OV-10 while it is ducking and weaving over the place.
However saying all that basically the effect is the same as a Griffin missile which is better adjusted to deployment from an aircraft enabling all angle fires without the need of a rotating launcher. You could easily carry upwards of 48 Griffins in the back room of the OV-10 and drop them out a slot to achieve the same without the complexity of trying to adapt rockets into something they weren’t designed for. The Griffin however is designed for being dropped out of the back of an aircraft.
I'd suggest that this is just reinforcing whats been stated here - CAS is a capability requirement - not a platform requirement.
If you drill down to the current CAS requirements, short legs are tasked to deal with "green zone" or short day ground vehicle range missions - longer than that the planners then have to factor in AAR or racetracking heavies.
for all the noise about the super bronco, there is no way that this asset would have been able to deal with the majority of in depth support (ie SF LR missions) currently in play.
again, look at CAS as a capability requirement on the reverse onion layer construct... the further out you are, the more you need to look at legs and racetrack assets.
again, CAS as conducted by the alphabet agencies in sth america is not the same as how its conducted "close to the green zone" or how its done in a long range scenario where heavy helos start to come into play to provide folded in support (eg commandos backing up SAS/R or rangers backing up DELTA)
there is no single platform solution - hence why the emphasis is now on the flexility of the weapons requirement across disparate platforms
short lifters have a place, helos have a place, buffs and their kin have their place.
Griffin sounds promising although a bit expensive.
Another thought is using the retractable Guardian gun turret (as a replaceable rear door instead of a floor mounted model). This would allow a quick reaction weapon without the weight and recoil penalty of the 20mm turret.
Another thought is using the retractable Guardian gun turret (as a replaceable rear door instead of a floor mounted model). This would allow a quick reaction weapon without the weight and recoil penalty of the 20mm turret.
I don’t think anyone will want to swap a 20mm/30mm for a 7.62mm/12.7mm in a shooting asset. You want the extra range of the cannon to outrange ground based Dshkas and the striking power of the explosive round to do serious damage. Also the BAES Guardian is a lot more draggy when deployed and limited in its ammunition supply as it trains with the gun.
Its not just internal volume its weight as well plus a non retractable Guardian would really drag up the aircraft. Further what is the need? You've got 48 Griffins... anyone start shooting a Dshka and you can send a Griffin down on their ass.
My idea was not a "non-retractable" Guardian, but a retractable one housed in the rear door area (thereby negating the need for floor space used or internal volume used). It also has the benefit of being optional (swap out the doors if needed).
MGs (especially a gatling) are good area suppression weapons (sweeping a tree line, targeting multiple targets quickly, etc) while maintaining a VERY low chance of collateral damage. They are also good for a quick reaction weapon (can have lead on target in 2-3 seconds while a missile can take up to 10).
Last, but not least, the Guardian can engage close in targets that are not capable with a munition like the Griffin.
I am not saying either/or but the Guardian can be an enhancement due to it's add-on nature
MGs (especially a gatling) are good area suppression weapons (sweeping a tree line, targeting multiple targets quickly, etc) while maintaining a VERY low chance of collateral damage. They are also good for a quick reaction weapon (can have lead on target in 2-3 seconds while a missile can take up to 10).
Last, but not least, the Guardian can engage close in targets that are not capable with a munition like the Griffin.
I am not saying either/or but the Guardian can be an enhancement due to it's add-on nature
mitenotlikeit
New Member
Received update related to A-10
Look forward to following this discussion in more detail.
Happy to be directed to your discussion. I have been involved in discussions concerning the A-10 Thunderbolt and the F-35 joint task multi role fighter. Disappointed to discover that Cheeney was not supportive of the Osprey program, and that Clinton was ( Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) Early Development.
Look forward to following this discussion in more detail.
The cargo door on the OV-10D is where all the electronics are to operate the FLIR and weapon system. You kind of need that if you want to do all that other stuff.
Only when flying at low level. The effectiveness of a 7.62/12.7 drops off radically with a bit of altitude. If you are going to be flying an aircraft loaded with missiles looking for targets you are going to be up a it higher (a few thousand feet) and your MG is not going to be very effective. If you are going to be flying at altitude low enough to effectively use your MG you aren’t going to be able to make much use of your rockets. It’s a Catch 22.
But bear in mind that the OV-10X as proposed by Boeing will have a 30x113mm gun turret. This will enable it to sit up high like a WAH-64D and bang away. With some Hellfires and conventional 70mm rockets (with flechettes) and a tight turning circle it can basically do all the damage a WAH-64D can do. Which short of busting buildings is most of what troopies on the ground want.
The only difference would be that because you are using wings for lift you can fly for much faster (get there quicker), longer (stay overhead logner) and carry more ordnance (hit harder) than a WAH-64D in Afghanistan. So no reason this Apace with wings OV-10X couldn’t go into battle with ~1,200 rounds of 30mm, 38 70mm rockets and eight Hellfires. Or with a mix of missiles, two Hellfires and 24 Griffins.
And all that without building a new weapon or filling the rear bay with missiles.
A-10 successor
I tend to speculate when i see modern weapon systems and what their particular role and function is on todays battlefield if it can't simply be made better. With the A-10 you have basically a flying tank, the CAS role brimming with powerful weapons in order to destroy tanks and armor and some poor fools that end up getting torn to shreds by it's 30mm cannon. Now this to me would seem like a prime candidate for simply increasing everything that made the A-10 the plane that is.So increasing it's armor, increasing it's thrust to match the increased weight,increased firepower by using a bigger cannon etc.Considering the power that some turbofans now generate wouldn't it be a real option to design an actual "flying tank" that could sustain more then the 23mm cannon rounds but maybe even most modern AA missiles warheads and or MANPADS ? The design would probably increase in size due to the more powerful engines and the fuel it needs but I wonder how far one could improve on the basic A-10 concept with todays technology.Especially since there doesn't seem to be a real alternative to the A-10 and the specific capabilities it can deliver to the battlefield.
I tend to speculate when i see modern weapon systems and what their particular role and function is on todays battlefield if it can't simply be made better. With the A-10 you have basically a flying tank, the CAS role brimming with powerful weapons in order to destroy tanks and armor and some poor fools that end up getting torn to shreds by it's 30mm cannon. Now this to me would seem like a prime candidate for simply increasing everything that made the A-10 the plane that is.So increasing it's armor, increasing it's thrust to match the increased weight,increased firepower by using a bigger cannon etc.Considering the power that some turbofans now generate wouldn't it be a real option to design an actual "flying tank" that could sustain more then the 23mm cannon rounds but maybe even most modern AA missiles warheads and or MANPADS ? The design would probably increase in size due to the more powerful engines and the fuel it needs but I wonder how far one could improve on the basic A-10 concept with todays technology.Especially since there doesn't seem to be a real alternative to the A-10 and the specific capabilities it can deliver to the battlefield.
Lindermyer
New Member
Im not very familiar with the OV10, but i would suspect that most of the nose is filled with the basic avionics and radios.
Even modern flir systems are quite bulky and heavy - Im pretty sure the processor wouldnt physically fit in the nose.
Then you have the additional Tactical radios, video systems, searchlights if required, any computer for targeting systems and possibly a workstation in the back, given size and space constraints at the front.
It soon adds up to a whole new avionics rack required.
EmperorNortonII
New Member
I've heard rumor that the USMC is currently in the process of developing/procuring an "affordable" CAS aircraft to do things that the F-35 isn't suited to. Has anyone heard much about this?
There seems to be a lot of focus in this discussion on the COE - by the time the F-35 comes online in any serious numbers, the US could be involved in a very different type of conflict - presumably the USAF is not fated to eternally drop PGMs on 3 guys with AK-47s.
How useful/survivable will A-10s be in an operational enviornment that have any kind of serious ADA threat?
Or even if we do continue fighting in predominately aysmmetric conflicts, what happens if insurgents/militias are provided with 3rd or 4th generations MANPADS like Chinese FN-6 or Russian SA-16/SA-18? Can A-10s (or AC-130s for that matter) remain survivable when confronted with these weapons - remember that the American public dosen't typically react well to the loss of aircraft and pilots. Everytime a UH-60 or CH-47 goes down from small arms or RPG fire, it's a huge deal in the news...
How useful/survivable will A-10s be in an operational enviornment that have any kind of serious ADA threat?
Or even if we do continue fighting in predominately aysmmetric conflicts, what happens if insurgents/militias are provided with 3rd or 4th generations MANPADS like Chinese FN-6 or Russian SA-16/SA-18? Can A-10s (or AC-130s for that matter) remain survivable when confronted with these weapons - remember that the American public dosen't typically react well to the loss of aircraft and pilots. Everytime a UH-60 or CH-47 goes down from small arms or RPG fire, it's a huge deal in the news...
There is some significant confusion in the general media that the US Svces and Agencies that have a requirement for light CAS are therefore flagging a shift to an overall specialised CAS replacement.
That is not the case. SEALs have LCAS in eval due to niche requirements. the USG agencies already have over 60 light frames in place. The USN need is a defacto involvement due to SEALs requirements and does not inidcate a shift.
In fact even internal US reports have openly stated how LCAS cannot be used as a mainstream solution.
They are definitely not looking at replacing the CAS capability identified in some of the JSF CONOPS with AT's, LCAS derivatives