KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8142 posts, RR: 51 Posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5654 times:
Should the USAF consider the Typhoon FGR-4 version? It could become a replacement for the A-10 lookin at the FGR-4s ground attck missions. The FGR-4 carries a BK-27 guns, but in the USAF version, perhaps a GAU-22/A or possibly the GAU-8/A gun (installed on the A-10) could be fitted, along with an air refueling receptical, instead of the refuling probe.
The Typhoon FGR4 looks like it can carry about the same weapons types as the A-10, but not as many.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5631 times:
The FGR4 has way to much top end performance to be a good troop support airplane; not sure it can manuever at the slow speeds where the A-10 excels either. And the A-10's built in cannon is a hefty piece of hardware. I might be wrong but I suspect it would take some considerable redesign to make the gun fit in the Typhoon. Factor in the cost of buying and operating the airplane, as compared to maintaining and flying the A-10, and the costs outweigh what few benefits there might be.
On the flip side, I could see the FGR4 as an interceptor used to defend the continental United States and as an air superiority fighter to replace the F-15. It's quite capable, as the European nations that now fly it will attest to. And since it's second only to the F-22A in an out-and-out dog fight, it could easily hold its own against opposing forces if we had to deploy it.
Reheat From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 3 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5406 times:
As I remember it, the A-10 is essentially an airplane built around the huge GAU-8/A cannon, and I can't see a feasible way to integrate that thing into the Typhoon's fuselage. And while the Typhoon can perform the ground attack role reasonably well, the A-10 is probably still the more reasonable plane for the CAS role.
Concerning the Typhoon as an interceptor: While a Typhoon sporting USAF markings would be a great sight to behold, it's rather doubtful that such a purchase is ever going to happen. As the costs of buying the F-22 and the Typhoon are comparable (no sources here, but I'm sure that has been exhaustedly discussed and they should have the same order of magnitude) it's hard to see Congress axing the F-22 while at the same time approving a purchase of some Eurofighters.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2656 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5390 times:
Blame this on the US Air Force who decided to take a high performance a/c - F-16 - and say it is a CAS a/c, now any a/c which can carry a bomb is regarded as being able to do CAS. My question would be, how survivable is a Typhoon in the down and dirty, can it take a hit and keep flying, it is a fast a/c up high with good turn performance, true CAS requires and a/c which can go slow enough to pinpoint and pick off its targets while exposing itself to some small arms and other nasty ground fire.
Recently watched some tapes on the P-51 in WWII, one of the better air to air a/c but doing the ground straffing after escort missions lost numerous a/c due to its inability to take ground fire hits, the P-47 on the other hand............ Typhoon has a secondary ground mission which may have been in its original design, but I think the work they were talking about was more of the F-16, F-111 or F-15E not the A-10 type, high altitude bomb drops.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8142 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5373 times:
How much does the Typhoon cost, per unit? I have tried to find that information, but it is not on the Eurofighter web site.
Quoting Reheat (Reply 3): it's hard to see Congress axing the F-22 while at the same time approving a purchase of some Eurofighters.
Our Congress has done dumber thing than that before. They have a long and proud tradition of stupidity.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5341 times:
This is probably going to be going off the deep end, but how about a new technology replacement for the A-10? A modern tank buster is needed, and while the A-10 performs admirably in the role still, it won't be able to last forever. Design for the mission rather than modify an existing airplane to meet the mission. In the case of the A-10 replacement, this would seem to be especially true.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 8, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5333 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7): This is probably going to be going off the deep end, but how about a new technology replacement for the A-10? A modern tank buster is needed, and while the A-10 performs admirably in the role still, it won't be able to last forever. Design for the mission rather than modify an existing airplane to meet the mission. In the case of the A-10 replacement, this would seem to be especially true.
Sure, new build A-10's with upgraded avionics and new engines.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter): The FGR-4 carries a BK-27 guns, but in the USAF version, perhaps a GAU-22/A or possibly the GAU-8/A gun (installed on the A-10) could be fitted
How in the world could you mount that monster cannon on a Typhoon?
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3956 posts, RR: 26 Reply 10, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5319 times:
Quoting Michlis (Reply 9): Is the tooling in storage or was it scrapped?
That I do not know. However if it were scrapped that does not mean you could not build new A-10's. It would mean that such a program would cost more money since you would have to make new tooling.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 2778 posts, RR: 31 Reply 11, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5198 times:
Typhoon is a fighter with a secondary A-G role. Not bad, but I am not sure it is any better than, for example, an F-16.
As a complement to the F-22 it might be useful, but we all know that is never going to happen. For A-G a lot of airplanes are better suited, thats not what Typhoon was initally designed for.
Arniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1083 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5129 times:
I'm by no means an expert but this might be an opportunity for both US and EU companies to join forces and both get something in return for it.
Let's say Northrop with its massive stealth experience would join forces with the EF consortium.
Make a production line in the US and improve the EF into the platform it really should be.
Make it possible to install 2 engine variants (EJ230 and GE414) , get rid of the canards and install TVC, Get an American made last gen AESA and maybe some other useful sensors and implement all of the US ground attack weapons and give the US the possibility to Americanize the METEOR and IRST.
Also the possibility for a Gatling gun with a bigger munition storage tank would be good as would be a filling position for a hard-boom iso the flex used now.
Last but not least , let Northrop loose on the stealth part and see what they can do too improve its stealth characteristics without blowing up the price.
This ultimately could lead to a not too expensive fighter with good A2G and A2A capabilities which could carry almost all weapons produced by all NATO (affiliated) countries and it also could be acquired in sufficient numbers, tightening NATO partners relations while providing a true competitor to the LM JSF product.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2656 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5108 times:
Quoting Arniepie (Reply 13): This ultimately could lead to a not too expensive fighter with good A2G and A2A capabilities which could carry almost all weapons produced by all NATO (affiliated) countries and it also could be acquired in sufficient numbers, tightening NATO partners relations while providing a true competitor to the LM JSF product.
We're all allowed to dream aren't we.
Let me get this right, you are dreaming of a stealth tank buster to be deployed by the US and EU nations?
Cool
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11242 posts, RR: 82 Reply 15, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5104 times:
As much as I like the Typhoon, I would not expect the USAF to buy it, would quite understand objections to this.
If we are talking about a supplemental air to ground mission, not that I think really anything should be taken away for the F-35, F-18F?
Two crew, two pairs of eyes, a potential Fast FAC?
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5087 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 15): Two crew, two pairs of eyes, a potential Fast FAC?
As Fast FAC is generally a USAF mission, the F-16D would likely be the most likely candidate. Fast Fac doesn't require a lot in the way of avionics, though the radio equipment would likely be enhanced to provide better communications with ground units. Of course, if the Marines want to do the Fast Fac thing, the F/A-18D would be the bird to do it with. It's a shame the TA-7C isn't still around. Might make a good Fast Fac bird too.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8142 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5081 times:
Quoting Michlis (Reply 9): Quoting LMP737 (Reply 8):
Sure, new build A-10's with upgraded avionics and new engines.
No, the A-10 tooling is still around, and being used to rebuild about half the A/OA-10 fleet
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 11): Typhoon is a fighter with a secondary A-G role. Not bad, but I am not sure it is any better than, for example, an F-16.
I don't think so, I think the Typhoon is a much better fighter/attack than either the F-16 or F/A-18.
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 12): How much? €58-59 m unit price, about $84 m. In other words about half the price of an F-22.
Thank you.
Quoting GDB (Reply 15): If we are talking about a supplemental air to ground mission, not that I think really anything should be taken away for the F-35, F-18F?
Seems to me the Typhoon is better than either the F-35 or F/A-18F, and costs about the same.
Quoting GDB (Reply 15): Two crew, two pairs of eyes, a potential Fast FAC?
Wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5067 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5): Our Congress has done dumber thing than that before. They have a long and proud tradition of stupidity.
No arguments on that one!!!
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): The A-10 is a pretty unique plane for it's role. If she must be replaced, how about some new-build Su-25's?
There is really no difference between the 2 aircraft other than the A-10 probably is a little better and more durable it doesn't make any sense to buy the Russian built aircraft.
Quoting Reheat (Reply 3): Concerning the Typhoon as an interceptor: While a Typhoon sporting USAF markings would be a great sight to behold, it's rather doubtful that such a purchase is ever going to happen. As the costs of buying the F-22 and the Typhoon are comparable (no sources here, but I'm sure that has been exhaustedly discussed and they should have the same order of magnitude) it's hard to see Congress axing the F-22 while at the same time approving a purchase of some Eurofighters.
I agree there is not that much difference between the Cost of an F-22 and a Typhoon added the extra's the USAF would want, not going to happen.
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 1): On the flip side, I could see the FGR4 as an interceptor used to defend the continental United States and as an air superiority fighter to replace the F-15. It's quite capable, as the European nations that now fly it will attest to. And since it's second only to the F-22A in an out-and-out dog fight, it could easily hold its own against opposing forces if we had to deploy it.
The US doesn't need that expensive of an aircraft to protect US airspace, given the US extensive ground based radar systems and surface to air missles the US can protect its home turf with basic fighters a stripped down single seat superhornet which the US builds and is already being produced at much lower costs than the typhoon is ample protection.
Michlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 728 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4985 times:
Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 18): There is really no difference between the 2 aircraft other than the A-10 probably is a little better and more durable it doesn't make any sense to buy the Russian built aircraft.
The design philosophy between the two make them very different: the A-10 airframe was integrated around its 30mm cannon while the cannon in the SU-25 was intergrated into the airframe.
Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 18): The US doesn't need that expensive of an aircraft to protect US airspace, given the US extensive ground based radar systems and surface to air missles the US can protect its home turf with basic fighters a stripped down single seat superhornet which the US builds and is already being produced at much lower costs than the typhoon is ample protection.
I'm not sure that the US does have an integrated SAM network; it's never really been a strong point for the US although SAM support for battefields is fairly robust. Air defense is still the purview of the Air Force (and the Air National Guard) and with the Air Force retiring a hundred or so 4th generation fighters next year there could be a big gap in air defense. As a an example, when the F-15s were grounded last year, defense of most of the eastern seaboard was tasked to the Vermont National Guard and their very used F-16s. They did a great job, but it put a lot of wear on the machines and the people flying and maintaining them. I do agree that having an aircraft like the F-22 or Typhoon is probably not necessary, except for potentially high threat areas like Alaska, but an F-18 just won't cut it because it was never designed as interceptor nor does it have the range to effectively perform the mission.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4938 times:
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 19): Quoting Par13del (Reply 14):
Let me get this right, you are dreaming of a stealth tank buster to be deployed by the US and EU nations?
Cool Smile
I don't see the development of a stealth tank buster. Down low and in clear site of opposing forces, it'll be tactics and not stealth that will keep the airplane up and the pilot alive.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 3964 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4929 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 22): The US does not have an integrated SAM network. Back in the late seventies the last of the NIKE SAM batteries were dismantled.
The US uses SAMs mostly for point defense. The USAF relies heavily on fighters and it is worth noting that their AWACS capability is probably the best in the world.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8142 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4847 times:
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 19): Quoting Par13del (Reply 14):
Let me get this right, you are dreaming of a stealth tank buster to be deployed by the US and EU nations?
Cool Smile
Also a warp drive and some phaser banks would be kind of cool but that's maybe pushing it a little.
Don't forget the photon torpedos and defensive shields..................
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2656 posts, RR: 3 Reply 25, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4844 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 23): The US uses SAMs mostly for point defense
Until the Patriot came around even that was questionably, especially battlefield protection, hence the Army's need for the Sgt. York.
The US has always relied on establishing air dominance over the battlefield, unfortunately, the Army has oft times not had the patience to wait for it, guess it goes to show the power of the Air Force, the Army could not even get good mobile SAM's or Tripple A guns to travel along with their tanks, putting Stingers on a Hummvee was their solution. Now that the cold war is over they should order up a few ZSU's and reverse engineer a local design, air force type's will now have to learn to duck like their army friends
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3191 posts, RR: 2 Reply 26, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5025 times:
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 2): As an F-15 replacement and as an adjunct to the F-22?
Yes, that would make a great deal of sense.
Not to Boeing and their lobbyists.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): I would think Boeing would have a better shot at pushing a Strike Eagle version of the Silent Eagle concept.
It would be an uphill battle promoting the Typhoon here even in the primary mission it's very good at.
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 11): Typhoon is a fighter with a secondary A-G role. Not bad, but I am not sure it is any better than, for example, an F-16.
As a complement to the F-22 it might be useful, but we all know that is never going to happen. For A-G a lot of airplanes are better suited, thats not what Typhoon was initally designed for.
This may be bordering on blind faith, but AFAIC, the Slam Eagle still has only a couple of peers in this department as a fly-alone platform among 4th Generation fighters.
Quoting Michlis (Reply 20): Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 18):
There is really no difference between the 2 aircraft other than the A-10 probably is a little better and more durable it doesn't make any sense to buy the Russian built aircraft.
The design philosophy between the two make them very different: the A-10 airframe was integrated around its 30mm cannon while the cannon in the SU-25 was intergrated into the airframe.
The biggest problem with being very well suited for the role the Hog was designed for is it's getting too long in the tooth trying to find a reliever.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): I don't think so, I think the Typhoon is a much better fighter/attack than either the F-16 or F/A-18.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17): Seems to me the Typhoon is better than either the F-35 or F/A-18F, and costs about the same.
I wonder where the Silent Eagle would stand in this lineup.
Jackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 470 posts, RR: 7 Reply 28, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4943 times:
"Seems to me the Typhoon is better than either the F-35 or F/A-18F, and costs about the same."
"I wonder where the Silent Eagle would stand in this lineup."
The Typhoon is a better A-A aircraft than the F-35 (and is better all round EXCEPT for the first day of the war, 'kick down the door' stuff that a Stealth platform - or a Tomahawk - can do better). It's a better all rounder than Super Hornet.
Silent Eagle is less stealthy than a Super Hornet, according to Boeing at Paris, so it trails some way behind the rest.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8142 posts, RR: 51 Reply 29, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4754 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 26): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
I don't think so, I think the Typhoon is a much better fighter/attack than either the F-16 or F/A-18.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Seems to me the Typhoon is better than either the F-35 or F/A-18F, and costs about the same.
I wonder where the Silent Eagle would stand in this lineup.
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28): Silent Eagle is less stealthy than a Super Hornet, according to Boeing at Paris, so it trails some way behind the rest.
I didn't suggest the Silent Eagle because we don't know enough about its potential capabilities, as compared to the Typhoon, yet.
To me the Silent Eagle is a direct F-15E replacement, with longer legs.
Wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4621 times:
Quoting Michlis (Reply 20): I'm not sure that the US does have an integrated SAM network; it's never really been a strong point for the US although SAM support for battefields is fairly robust. Air defense is still the purview of the Air Force (and the Air National Guard) and with the Air Force retiring a hundred or so 4th generation fighters next year there could be a big gap in air defense. As a an example, when the F-15s were grounded last year, defense of most of the eastern seaboard was tasked to the Vermont National Guard and their very used F-16s. They did a great job, but it put a lot of wear on the machines and the people flying and maintaining them. I do agree that having an aircraft like the F-22 or Typhoon is probably not necessary, except for potentially high threat areas like Alaska, but an F-18 just won't cut it because it was never designed as interceptor nor does it have the range to effectively perform the mission.
Ok I didn't know the US was not equipted with an integrated SAM network, I always thought that they did due to the SAMS being deployed around DC during 09/11 and afterwards. As far as the F-18 I think you may want to take a look the single seat Super hornet's primary mission is interceptor and fleet protection, whil the tandem seat versions primary mission is for a strike aircraft. I do agree that the F-22 will probbaly be needed in alaska and hawaii and around the capitol and how much range would an aircraft need to protect its own shores?
Quote: "Bell also sought to lower expectations for the F-15SE's frontal aspect radar cross-section. While programme officials previously predicted that it would match its counterpart on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Bell says that Boeing could not be certain.
'Until we get one on the pole and do the studies, that's all theoretical at this point,' he says."
.....So it's doubtful it would lag much, if at all, behind the rest. And with all the attributes noted below, especially the AESA radar that the others are yet to have, I'd say the Silent Eagle would give them a tough run for their money.....
Quote: "'Making this commitment to get the programme through to a flight demonstration will ultimately help international customers understand how this aircraft meets their need for a flexible, long-range, large-payload, high-speed, multirole strike fighter with reduced observability.'
[.....]
The configuration introduces a canted tail and a new internal weapons bay based on a modified conformal fuel tank. It is also proposing to introduce fly-by-wire flight controls and a BAE Systems digital electronic warfare system.
Bell confirms that Boeing is in talks with Raytheon about the option of integrating a new active electronically scanned array radar designated the APG-82. That would provide export customers of the F-15SE with the same radar system selected for the US Air Force's F-15E radar modernisation programme."
Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 30): Ok I didn't know the US was not equipted with an integrated SAM network, I always thought that they did due to the SAMS being deployed around DC during 09/11 and afterwards.
They did, at least for a short while. that was a "feel good" PR stunt as the SAMs deployed were the old I-Hawks and Patriot-PAC-1s.
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 31): Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
Silent Eagle is less stealthy than a Super Hornet, according to Boeing at Paris, so it trails some way behind the rest.
How much so?
I doubt the F-15SE would need much in the way of stealth capabilities. It is designed as a low level penatrator, and will fly nap of the Earth, or tarrain following radar systems. This is how the F-15E and old F/FB-111s operated, and they were very successful at not being scene by ground based radars.
BilgeRat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 143 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3866 times:
If anyone wants to have a good read on what modern CAS is all about, then check out "Joint Force Harrier" by Commander Ade Orchard RN. Orchard was one of the most experienced Sea Harrier pilots in the RN, and was selected to command the UK's Harrier detachment at Kandahar in the latter part of 2006.
He goes into some detail about the choice of weapons that are carried, the mission profiles and tactics used, as well as the communication between the troops on the ground and the guys actually in the air. He also describes the difficulty of flying these missions.
Basically the aircraft operated in pairs, one carrying two 1,000LB Paveways and the other carrying two 540LB free fall air burst weapons and two CRV7 pods. Both aircraft carried targetting pods. They operated as "on-call" CAS aircraft to support NATO forces that were in trouble on the ground, and by all accounts this was quite a frequent occurence. Once they established contact with the JTAC he would talk them onto the target, and would suggest a weapon to use. One of the Harriers would remain at medium altitude to lase the target, whilst the other aircraft would make the attack, remaining at medium altitude.
At the end of the book he makes some very interesting comments about the Harrier as a CAS platform, actually describing it as the best CAS jet in the world (not surprising coming from a Harrier pilot), saying it was superior to the A-10 because it can get to the action twice as fast, speed being a critical factor in the missions flown in Afghanistan, when every second wasted meant the guys on the ground were closer to being overrun by the Taliban.
NicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 815 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3824 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 25): Now that the cold war is over they should order up a few ZSU's and reverse engineer a local design, air force type's will now have to learn to duck like their army friends
WAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 940 posts, RR: 16 Reply 36, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3813 times:
You really don't need all that expense in a CAS aircraft. How about an updated Harrier? Our GR7s and GR9s acquitted themselves extremely well in Southern Afghanistan, they don't have the all powerful gun of the A10 but the days of expecting to fight a large scale armoured war are all but gone. Harrier can be on station quicker than A10 and can mount just about any relevant weapon you care to think of, its more maneuvreable, quicker and arguably a better CAS aircraft than the A10 in all but the tank busting role.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2656 posts, RR: 3 Reply 37, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3785 times:
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 36): Harrier can be on station quicker than A10 and can mount just about any relevant weapon you care to think of, its more maneuvreable, quicker and arguably a better CAS aircraft than the A10 in all but the tank busting role.
Only negatives I can see is payload and time on station, both tend to mitigate the speed disadvantage.
The ability to sustain damage is another story, both a/c are capable, the UK and the US Marines have proven the worth of the Harrier in combat, good siblings to have in the stable.
WAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 940 posts, RR: 16 Reply 38, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3739 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 37): Only negatives I can see is payload and time on station, both tend to mitigate the speed disadvantage.
The ability to sustain damage is another story, both a/c are capable, the UK and the US Marines have proven the worth of the Harrier in combat, good siblings to have in the stable.
In recent operations, payload has not been an issue. Low Time on station is also mitigated by adequate asset rotation and tanker support. The majority of the time, these aircraft will respond to a troops in contact call whilst they are in a standoff hold. Its here that the speed advantage comes into play.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11242 posts, RR: 82 Reply 39, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3696 times:
The Harrier would have been an even better CAS asset had the programme for a new 25mm gun not gone to crap.
You wonder why they did not either 1) make the thing work, 2) shoehorn the first generation Harrier's 30mm on to it or probably best of all, 3) buy some of the 25mm the USMC use.
WAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 940 posts, RR: 16 Reply 40, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3638 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 39): The Harrier would have been an even better CAS asset had the programme for a new 25mm gun not gone to crap.
You wonder why they did not either 1) make the thing work, 2) shoehorn the first generation Harrier's 30mm on to it or probably best of all, 3) buy some of the 25mm the USMC use.
The USMC 25mm cannon would have been an excellent addition. Political decisions are mystifying at the best of times though.
Having seen both the GR7 and GR9 in action, they are exactly what the doctor ordered for the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. The RN/RAF crews of Joint Force Harrier are the epitome of professionalism, its an often overlooked aircraft but to the guys on the ground who really need its support, nothing did the job better. We have Tornado GR4s in theatre at the moment since the departure of the Harrier Force.
Elmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 41, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3348 times:
Sure, if they want to rebuild a Typhoon 4 around an Avenger. Otherwise no, there is no way you are replacing the A-10, unless it's with another A-10.
BlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 713 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2921 times:
Only way to solve the A-10 ageing problem is build more NEW A-10s with all the new Gadgets fitted as it is a proven weapons platform and just about the most feard COIN Aircraft on planet Earth.
Where ever it goes the A-10 is renouned for being able to make the bad guys duck and cover hoping to survive the GAU-8 Canons rath.
Few if any talliban or Iraqi would willingly take on ground troops with a Warthog in te area as it is almost a Suicide mission.
Stick your head up and get it Shot off by 30MM shells.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2893 times:
If the USAF is still using the origional tooling to refit the existing A-10s, it would not take a prohibative ammount of brass to fire up a production line again. Add in some new improvements to aerodynamics, radar, engines, wings, but keeping the basic hull and gun and you would have an unparaleled CAS ship at bargain prices.
Screw the idea about the USAF buying new Typhoons, howabout the RAF and maybe others getting a squadron of new build A-10s!
One can dream...
Gliding is to power flying as seduction is to rape.
BlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 713 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2899 times:
If the RAF had any say in what it purchased we woul have had A-10s long ago and maybe some B-1s but we have to live with a bunch of Screw Driver monkeys in Government(Civilians) mucking the services about and then expecting the services to to the same Job with less equipment.
Screw Driver Monkeys is a term a friend uses for UK Ministers who have in the past given military planers headaches by tweaking a Plan with a 5,000 mile long Screw Driver from White Hall!
Rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1016 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 44): If the USAF is still using the origional tooling to refit the existing A-10s, it would not take a prohibative ammount of brass to fire up a production line again. Add in some new improvements to aerodynamics, radar, engines, wings, but keeping the basic hull and gun and you would have an unparaleled CAS ship at bargain prices.
Screw the idea about the USAF buying new Typhoons, howabout the RAF and maybe others getting a squadron of new build A-10s!
Well the Su-25 is actually *in* production. Well, assuming the Georgians have repaired the factory...
Obviously I'm not serious (the darn thing could have Warp Drive and Phasers, and Congress and the USAF would still not buy it), but the Bulgarians actually have a few in NATO service - they seem to do well in competitions. Darn things are cheap too.
Unfortunately the A-10 line has been shut down for more than 25 years. Restarting it will not be simple.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 463 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 46): Unfortunately the A-10 line has been shut down for more than 25 years. Restarting it will not be simple.
Not simple to be sure, but deffinately simpler than designing from scratch an all new aircraft that probably wouldnt outperform the A-10 by much anyway. You do still have people experienced with a good amount of the tooling just for maintaining / refitting the current fleet. Its all academic though, its not gonna happen.
Gliding is to power flying as seduction is to rape.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, RR: 52 Reply 48, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2636 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 47): Not simple to be sure, but deffinately simpler than designing from scratch an all new aircraft that probably wouldnt outperform the A-10 by much anyway.
I heard the USAF thinks the A10 is slow. A replacement would likely have to be faster. But not M2. I think the USAF was confronted with the no good A10 replacement issue yrs ago & decided to rewing / equip A10s. Full scale production from 2011. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123098096
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 49, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2631 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 48): I heard the USAF thinks the A10 is slow.
The A-10 is slow. It wasn't designed to be fast; it was designed to be highly manueverable at very low altitude and it is all of that.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 11242 posts, RR: 82 Reply 50, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2597 times:
My understanding is that the spec for what became the A-10, (which later beat the Northrop A-9 which was rather like the later SU-25), had it's origins in the requirement of an A-1 Skyraider replacement for Counter Insurgency.
As US involvement in SE Asia wound down, a new role was found, mainly as a counter to the massive Soviet armored forces in the European theater, this is where the GAU-8 cannon came into play.
And the A-10 ended up replacing USAF A-7D's in effect.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8142 posts, RR: 51 Reply 51, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, RR: 52 Reply 53, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 49): Quoting Keesje (Reply 48):
I heard the USAF thinks the A10 is slow.
The A-10 is slow. It wasn't designed to be fast; it was designed to be highly manueverable at very low altitude and it is all of that.
With slow I meant too slow. If an A10 finds itself under heavy unexpected ground fire, it takes long to get out of danger. However it's heavily armored and has a lot of redundancy and most jets are to fast for many CAS missions. Its always a compromise. The A-10 has little competition, however hundreds have been stored already. Then some of those will be rewinged..
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8142 posts, RR: 51 Reply 54, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 52): Looking at pictures and the specs on the A-9 it's pretty obvious why the USAF went with the A-10.
Neither the A-9 or A-10 will ever win a beauty contest.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 53): With slow I meant too slow. If an A10 finds itself under heavy unexpected ground fire, it takes long to get out of danger. However it's heavily armored and has a lot of redundancy and most jets are to fast for many CAS missions. Its always a compromise. The A-10 has little competition, however hundreds have been stored already. Then some of those will be rewinged..
Many of those A-10s at AMARC will never fly again. Most will donate their useable parts to keep those that are flying now, and being beefed up in the center wing section. A few A-10s are in "flyable storage" and could some day return to flying either as an increase in the current fleet size, or as attrition replacements.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8142 posts, RR: 51 Reply 56, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1801 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 55): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 54):
Neither the A-9 or A-10 will ever win a beauty contest.
I was refering more to the design of the A-9 and not the looks.
Yes, I know. But actually both the A-10 and A-9 scored pretty close to each other in the fly-off compitition. The A-10 was thought to be able to absorb more damage from ground fire, and that has proven to be correct.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 8142 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 470 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 3 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2656 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1083 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3191 posts, 
Well, assuming the Georgians have repaired the factory...
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
