StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Off a few other boards, I'm getting indications that the Warthogs have been modified (perhaps greatly) since Desert Storm. For example, then they more or less had to use their Mavericks to get any sort of non-daylight operations going.

Now they're spooling up at 2200 local. Any ideas what the USAF has done to those birds?

They could still be using their Mavericks- and the cockpit is NVIS compatible.

I haven't heard or read a single peep about any A-10 upgrade ...

really wouldn't surprise me.

Avionics really are the only thing needing upgrading on them, though, seeing as though it is the lowest tech plane in the AF arsenal, and also one of the most successful.

Vympel wrote:They could still be using their Mavericks- and the cockpit is NVIS compatible.

I haven't heard or read a single peep about any A-10 upgrade ...

There's an old BUFF driver on another board who still keeps in touch with the USAF and indicates that not all is as it seems with the 'hog fleet.

phongn wrote:

Vympel wrote:They could still be using their Mavericks- and the cockpit is NVIS compatible.

I haven't heard or read a single peep about any A-10 upgrade ...

There's an old BUFF driver on another board who still keeps in touch with the USAF and indicates that not all is as it seems with the 'hog fleet.

Oh? Can it be elaborated upon, or is that all he can say?

This isn't politcal at all so I'm moving it to Off Topic.

They've got a relatively new GPS system (installed in some of the birds starting in '99). They can still use the Mavs for nightvision, though the pilots said it was like looking through a straw. Other than that, I can't find any information on the upgrades, though I do know they were working on upgrading the electronics in the cockpit.

Hard to believe it was supposed to have been phased out in the late 80's/early 90's.

Any idea as to what was to replace it?

Phil Skayhan wrote:Hard to believe it was supposed to have been phased out in the late 80's/early 90's.

Any idea as to what was to replace it?

The "A-16". Basically they wanted a pure Air-to-mud version of the F-16. The fighter proved highly reliable and capable and it can carry a fair load out. We already have the F-16CG right now for ground attack and it compliments the A-10. Basically we don't need the gun on the A-10 like we used to, rather we need the air-to-ground weapons capability. The newest versions of the F-16 do this quite well. The F-35 will then replace the F-16. It is unlikely the A-10 will be in service much after the first few F-35 squadrons enter service.

Alyeska wrote: The F-35 will then replace the F-16. It is unlikely the A-10 will be in service much after the first few F-35 squadrons enter service.

Show me an F-35 that has the loiter capability that the A-10 has, as well
as the prodigious bombload capability. (pretty much almost anything
can be hung under the A-10), or the GUN.

The Gun allows an A-10 to enage as many as 10+ tanks in a single sortie
before having to use its guided weapons.

LONG LIVE THE HOG!!!

They keep talking about phasing out the A-10 every few years or so, then they look at the specs and its past performance, and change their minds. As good as the F-16/A-16 concept might be, there is nothing as survivable, and as lethal in air-to-mud operations as a 'Warthog'. Until a weapons system comes along that renders it completly useless, the A-10 will stay in service. Hell, if the Air Force dosent want them anymore , the Army should ressurect its own fixed wing air-corps, and keep them in service

MKSheppard wrote:

Alyeska wrote: The F-35 will then replace the F-16. It is unlikely the A-10 will be in service much after the first few F-35 squadrons enter service.

Show me an F-35 that has the loiter capability that the A-10 has, as well
as the prodigious bombload capability. (pretty much almost anything
can be hung under the A-10), or the GUN.

The Gun allows an A-10 to enage as many as 10+ tanks in a single sortie
before having to use its guided weapons.

Nice as the A-10 is, it doesn't suit the evolving battlefield. Tanks typically don't line up like that and loiter capability is also missile vulnerability. The F-16 and probably the F-35 will have the capability to target multiple tanks and engage similtaneously. Imagine a group of F-35s each rippling off 4 Mavericks against a group of tanks. They go kaboom.

Eventually the Airforce is going to have to replace the basic concept of the A-10 (bomb truck and tank hunter), but for the mean time the F-16 and then the F-35 will work fairly well.

Alyeska wrote: The F-16 and probably the F-35 will have the capability to target multiple tanks and engage similtaneously. Imagine a group of F-35s each rippling off 4 Mavericks against a group of tanks. They go kaboom.

You forget that the A-10s can also carry mavericks. It's only a matter of
time before the A-10s avonics get upgraded.

MKSheppard wrote:

Alyeska wrote: The F-16 and probably the F-35 will have the capability to target multiple tanks and engage similtaneously. Imagine a group of F-35s each rippling off 4 Mavericks against a group of tanks. They go kaboom.

You forget that the A-10s can also carry mavericks. It's only a matter of
time before the A-10s avonics get upgraded.

I know that the A-10 carries Mavericks. I also know that Loiter Time is a liability in many circumstances. I also know the F-16 and F-35 will be faster and can get out of dodge quicker and so they will be less vulnerable when firing their missiles. The A-10 is built around its gun. Nice as that is, it has become a liability. There are relatively few situations in which the A-10 can effectively use its gun anymore. When it comes to hauling missiles and bombs the F-16 and F-35 will be able to do it better then the A-10. In the case of the F-35 it will have very stealthy features which will be a significant bonus. The A-10 on the other hand is slower and much more vulnerable to enemy fire.

Right out of the FAS section on the F-35 JSF.

USAF-Multi-role aircraft (primarily air-to-ground) to replace F-16 and A-10 and to complement F-22. The Air Force JSF variant poses the smallest relative engineering challenge. The aircraft has no hover criteria to satisfy, and the characteristics and handling qualities associated with carrier operations do not come into play. As the biggest customer for the JSF, the service will not accept a multirole F-16 fighter replacement that doesn't significantly improve on the original.

Thing is, will the F-35 have the loiter capability needed to provide effective
CAS?

going in at the speed of heat and firing a few mavericks and departing
10 minutes later because of low fuel does not make an effective CAS
aircraft.

MKSheppard wrote:Thing is, will the F-35 have the loiter capability needed to provide effective
CAS?

going in at the speed of heat and firing a few mavericks and departing
10 minutes later because of low fuel does not make an effective CAS
aircraft.

The F-35 has twice the internal fuel capacity compared to the F-18. The Marine version will certainly have loiter capability. I do believe the F-35 is better then the F-16 in almost every regard. The USAF was extremely demanding on the F-35 requirements and it would not accept something worse then the F-16. In other words the F-35 will have better loiter capability then a F-16, but probably not as good as the A-10.

Alyeska wrote: Imagine a group of F-35s each rippling off 4 Mavericks against a group of tanks.

The problem is without the Loiter Time tanks and other worthy targets can play hide-and-go-seek just long enough for the F-35s to have to return to base or a refueling point before destroying more than a couple of them.

Alyeska wrote: The USAF was extremely demanding on the F-35 requirements and it would not accept something worse then the F-16.

How much damage could they take before being shot down?

Alyeska wrote: The F-35 has twice the internal fuel capacity compared to the F-18.

I went and looked up the stats on www.globalsecurity.org
and http://www.danshistory.com/f16.html

3,104 kg internal fuel for F-16C
4,926 kg internal fuel for F/A-18 C/D
6,531 kg internal fuel for F/A-18 E/F
6,810 kg internal fuel for F-35

There was a cancelled program to massively upgrade the A-10's systems, including true night-attack capabilities. There was also a proposed twinseat A-10B version that the RTAF desperately wanted (and was willing to fund) but it was killed.

Less than an A-10.....but then again every other aircraft out there can sustain less damage than an A-10.

The F-35 looks to ba a fine aircraft, and a worthy succesor to the F-16, however I still feel that the A-10 still has its uses. With upgrades it can still compete on the modern battlefield, and there will always be a need for a 'low and slow' ground support aircraft. While old the A-10 stillperforms this task brilliantly and I feel that even with the introduction of the F-35, the A-10 will still see service in Air Guard units, and probably stay on active duty for at least another decade plus.

phongn wrote:There was also a proposed twinseat A-10B version that the RTAF desperately wanted (and was willing to fund) but it was killed.

Who killed the program, especially when someone else was willing to pay forit and it kept your workers employed.

Rubberanvil wrote:

phongn wrote:There was also a proposed twinseat A-10B version that the RTAF desperately wanted (and was willing to fund) but it was killed.

Who killed the program, especially when someone else was willing to pay forit and it kept your workers employed.

I think it may have actually been the US Government. They've done nutty things before (for example, Convair offered to finish the B-36 production line as B-60s at no additional cost but SAC rejected it).

It would have been an excellent replacement for the OV-10 (one of the Army's only fixed-wing aircraft, was a FAC).