24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,726
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,726
The A-10 is going away. Probably the youngest airframes out there are pushing 40 years old or older and they have been used A LOT over the last twenty years. Only so much upgrading and rebuilding you can do on that sort of aircraft. It isn’t a mere go up and come down bomb hauler.

There is going to be a big capability gap. The fastest helicopters are a 150 to 200 mph slower than the A-10 or one of those light attack aircraft. That means it takes them a long time to get there. All the gee whiz stuff that can be launched from an F-16 or an F-35 doesn’t mean much if it is thirty miles away topping off with a tanker before coming back to the fight. Gee whiz stuff doesn’t help too much with that guy who popped up twenty seconds ago and is now shooting at you from behind cover and will continue to do so until someone can drop some ordnance on him.

The idea of a relatively fast ordnance hauler that could get there quickly and then loiter long enough to deal with the inevitable targets of opportunity is appealing. Is the A-10 better? Sure, but’s it’s going away and they are not going to put money in the budget to restart production or design a replacement. This light attack deal was an attempt to get a lower cost solution with off the shelf technology.

Last edited by JoeBob; 02/13/20.
BP-B2

Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557
D
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
D
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,557
Originally Posted by FlyboyFlem
Originally Posted by Dryfly24
What is it about the warthog that the damn Air Force just doesn’t get? The Army should just tell the AF to GFY, go back to square one, create an army air wing and buy their own...


I've posted this many times before and don't mind again..The very first A-10's I saw fly in here and I'm talking many yrs ago where OD and had US Army logo on their tail feathers..It was all about logistics as the Army had no bases conducive for air ops and most likely would have ended up on AFB's anyway...As for buying their own there aren't any unless they want to resurrect them from the bone yard at DM..

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]


I’m sure they would be more than happy to make them again as long as someone was paying for them.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,786
B
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,786
Originally Posted by OSU_Sig
Damn. If I ever get the chance to meet you, beers are on me.


Same thoughtt!!!!!


Carry what you’re willing to fight with - Mackay Sagebrush

Perfect is the enemy of good enough
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,088
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,088
Building them again would prove to be a wee bit difficult, as Fairchild Republic no longer exists, and all the manufacturing jigs and patterns are long gone.


Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,726
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,726
I saw something in this thread about not liking them because a propellor sends how a huge radar signature making them easy to shoot down by a missile that is radar guided. Well, if that’s true about a prop, what about a rotor?

IC B2

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,124
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,124
Originally Posted by FlyboyFlem
For me the issue with this concept has always been about survivability since I flew many missions in danger close environments.. You won't necessarily be engaged by ZSU's slinging 23 mike mike or fixed 37 or 57 mm AAA most of the time but however you slice & dice it this is a very fragile airframe, I doubt its ability to absorb even the smallest amount of punishment and survive..Redundancy is next to zero and the fact they plant a WSO in the back seat just because it's inherent to the airframe design makes no sense.

Guess we will just agree to disagree on this one ...


For the Navy the FAC mission is designed to be flown two seat. The USMC was with the F/-18D but that plane is either gone or gone soon and I think the USAF is going that way with their buy of more F-15Es. The amount of data and coordination the FAC faces today is loads more than the past and it's about to get worse with UAVs'.


If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 390
C
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
C
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by RockyRaab
Building them again would prove to be a wee bit difficult, as Fairchild Republic no longer exists, and all the manufacturing jigs and patterns are long gone.


Any reason why we couldn't do what the Chinese would do? Just take one apart and copy it.

We're not going to do it but does that mean it couldn't easily be done?


All things are always on the move simultaneously. - W.S. Churchill
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,891
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 55,891
Originally Posted by JoeBob
I saw something in this thread about not liking them because a propellor sends how a huge radar signature making them easy to shoot down by a missile that is radar guided. Well, if that’s true about a prop, what about a rotor?



Rotors shine in the darkness too, but....they can hide in the bushes.


I am..........disturbed.

Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,242
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,242
Originally Posted by JoeBob
I saw something in this thread about not liking them because a propellor sends how a huge radar signature making them easy to shoot down by a missile that is radar guided. Well, if that’s true about a prop, what about a rotor?

Think about what a radar sees looking from several miles away. A rotor viewed from the front (or side or rear) is like looking at the lid of a coffee can ON EDGE. But a propeller on a plane viewed from afar is like looking at the lid of the coffee can as if you were staring at it face-on....a much bigger signature on radar.

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,726
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,726
Originally Posted by Triggernosis
Originally Posted by JoeBob
I saw something in this thread about not liking them because a propellor sends how a huge radar signature making them easy to shoot down by a missile that is radar guided. Well, if that’s true about a prop, what about a rotor?

Think about what a radar sees looking from several miles away. A rotor viewed from the front (or side or rear) is like looking at the lid of a coffee can ON EDGE. But a propeller on a plane viewed from afar is like looking at the lid of the coffee can as if you were staring at it face-on....a much bigger signature on radar.


So a helicopter remains perfectly flat and doesn’t bank or otherwise shift the orientation of its rotor throughout flight?

IC B3

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,896
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,896
Originally Posted by Pugs
Originally Posted by FlyboyFlem
For me the issue with this concept has always been about survivability since I flew many missions in danger close environments.. You won't necessarily be engaged by ZSU's slinging 23 mike mike or fixed 37 or 57 mm AAA most of the time but however you slice & dice it this is a very fragile airframe, I doubt its ability to absorb even the smallest amount of punishment and survive..Redundancy is next to zero and the fact they plant a WSO in the back seat just because it's inherent to the airframe design makes no sense.

Guess we will just agree to disagree on this one ...


For the Navy the FAC mission is designed to be flown two seat. The USMC was with the F/-18D but that plane is either gone or gone soon and I think the USAF is going that way with their buy of more F-15Es. The amount of data and coordination the FAC faces today is loads more than the past and it's about to get worse with UAVs'.



I have zero issues with a back seat just an unnecessary risk for a small CAS aircraft of this type with no redundant qualities.. In low threat theaters today the JTAC link up is the best eyes on any CAS driver could want with up to date real time info constantly at their disposal..I'm totally impressed with this mission and wish we would have had them in my day..RO's most often gave us incorrect info and locations which made differentiating between good and bad a headache .


You better be afraid of a ghost!!

"Woody you were baptized in prop wash"..crossfireoops






Woody
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,492
Campfire 'Bwana
Online Content
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,492
The future of CAS is standoff weapons or UAVs. Love the A-10 and it is still a VERY viable and useful platform, but you can only bend a paper clip so many times before it breaks and today's SAM environment is pretty deadly..


A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
D
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
D
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
I know strictly for SOF purposes having dedicated and cheap aircraft like that would be nice. SOF tested out OV10 set up for CAS in Iraq a few years back and it did pretty well from what I read.

For a big war they'd be worthless pretty much, but for the types of missions that our various SOF elements do around the world a dedicated group of airplanes organized along the lines of the 160th would be nice IMO. As for the airframe I have no idea what would be the best one.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,896
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,896
Originally Posted by jorgeI
The future of CAS is standoff weapons or UAVs. Love the A-10 and it is still a VERY viable and useful platform, but you can only bend a paper clip so many times before it breaks and today's SAM environment is pretty deadly..


Agreed ... I have my doubts about the survivability of our upgraded gunships as well even with their enhanced standoff capabilities.


You better be afraid of a ghost!!

"Woody you were baptized in prop wash"..crossfireoops






Woody
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,242
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,242
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by Triggernosis
Originally Posted by JoeBob
I saw something in this thread about not liking them because a propellor sends how a huge radar signature making them easy to shoot down by a missile that is radar guided. Well, if that’s true about a prop, what about a rotor?

Think about what a radar sees looking from several miles away. A rotor viewed from the front (or side or rear) is like looking at the lid of a coffee can ON EDGE. But a propeller on a plane viewed from afar is like looking at the lid of the coffee can as if you were staring at it face-on....a much bigger signature on radar.


So a helicopter remains perfectly flat and doesn’t bank or otherwise shift the orientation of its rotor throughout flight?
I didn't say that. Of course it banks and such. But, if you you're looking at a helicopter's rotor from missile distance (a couple to several miles away, let's say) what do you (on average) see? You're seeing the helo's rotor on EDGE and even though it's bigger than a typical plane's propeller it results in a much smaller signature on radar. As the helo yanks and banks during flight a radar may see the helo's signature come and go.

I work as a meteorologist and specialized in Doppler radar during my graduate studies. I have a couple of scientific journal publications on dual-Doppler radar analysis. One thing I can assure you - radar, while technologically well-developed and generally robust, is some persnickety s hit. Atmospheric conditions along with power output and tuning have to be just right in order to "see" exactly what you want to "see" with radar. Anything to reduce an aircraft's signature on radar is paramount to remaining stealthy - and the last thing you want to have is a giant fan turning in front of you 100% of the time that ends up looking like a great big bullseye to a radar. The only way to get THAT signature to come and go like with a helo would be to fly the airplane straight up or straight down - one of those is unattainable for any length of time, the other unsustainable for any length of time. ;-)

Last edited by Triggernosis; 02/13/20.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,124
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,124
Originally Posted by dodgefan
I know strictly for SOF purposes having dedicated and cheap aircraft like that would be nice. SOF tested out OV10 set up for CAS in Iraq a few years back and it did pretty well from what I read.

For a big war they'd be worthless pretty much, but for the types of missions that our various SOF elements do around the world a dedicated group of airplanes organized along the lines of the 160th would be nice IMO. As for the airframe I have no idea what would be the best one.


OV-10's were in over their heads 30 years ago. During Desert Storm they deployed 12 aircraft, lost 2 (16%) and flew 482 Sorties and that was in an environment with a lot of less capable MANPADs today and there was an aluminum overcast of us carrying HARMS begging for a SAM radar to turn on so we could shoot it.

Just like the COIN/ Light attack - how much of your defense budget is worth an aircraft that can only operate in a very small area of your mission scenarios?


If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,896
Campfire Outfitter
OP Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,896
Originally Posted by Pugs
Originally Posted by dodgefan
I know strictly for SOF purposes having dedicated and cheap aircraft like that would be nice. SOF tested out OV10 set up for CAS in Iraq a few years back and it did pretty well from what I read.

For a big war they'd be worthless pretty much, but for the types of missions that our various SOF elements do around the world a dedicated group of airplanes organized along the lines of the 160th would be nice IMO. As for the airframe I have no idea what would be the best one.


OV-10's were in over their heads 30 years ago. During Desert Storm they deployed 12 aircraft, lost 2 (16%) and flew 482 Sorties and that was in an environment with a lot of less capable MANPADs today and there was an aluminum overcast of us carrying HARMS begging for a SAM radar to turn on so we could shoot it.

Just like the COIN/ Light attack - how much of your defense budget is worth an aircraft that can only operate in a very small area of your mission scenarios?


Spot on !


You better be afraid of a ghost!!

"Woody you were baptized in prop wash"..crossfireoops






Woody
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
D
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
D
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
Oh I agree they made next to no sense for Desert Storm, I was thinking about what would essentially be a fixed wing Army SOF support element. Used to support SOF guys doing SOF stuff in all the little 3rd world holes they do their work in.

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,124
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 17,124
Originally Posted by dodgefan
Oh I agree they made next to no sense for Desert Storm, I was thinking about what would essentially be a fixed wing Army SOF support element. Used to support SOF guys doing SOF stuff in all the little 3rd world holes they do their work in.


If they're not dropping ordnance then follow the Air America model or others for things like we did in central America spraying poppies.


If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
D
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
D
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
I could see a use for Army fixed wing ground attack aircraft used to support SOF elements that is controlled by USSOCOM.

Budget wise I have no idea if it's feasible and I have no doubt that good idea fairies would jump all over it and drive the price through the roof even if they went ahead with it. I know they wouldn't be useful for big war, but SOF does a lot of stuff where there isn't really a need for an aircraft carrier to stay off shore waiting for them to call for help, but it's stil fairly dangerous. Case in point is that SF team that got hit in Nigeria a while back.

Having a couple of cheap rugged ground attack planes that could deploy in country to support them seems like a reasonable idea to me.

Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
671 members (12344mag, 10gaugemag, 160user, 10gaugeman, 10Glocks, 12308300, 55 invisible), 3,126 guests, and 1,272 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,742
Posts18,401,219
Members73,822
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.123s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.9083 MB (Peak: 1.0840 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 14:00:47 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS