Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A-10 To Be Used For Atmospheric Research  
User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 656 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9484 times:

I thought it was interesting and certainly the right airplane to fly the mission.

http://blog.ametsoc.org/uncategorize...-combative-attitude-toward-storms/

JM


What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineg38 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Very interesting. I'd love to see a shot of the "new" Thunderbolt.

User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8948 times:

Quoting g38 (Reply 1):
"new" Thunderbolt

Finally, the name matches the mission.....or is it the other way around?  



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 572 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 8850 times:

Some friends of mine are doing the modification. I am not sure if it's in the public domain yet. I'll ask and share if it is. It will almost certainly be at some point.

That being said, it would take some serious hazard pay for me to fly those missions. OK, you snap a wing, no problem, you've got a hot seat and a canopy. Well, it seems you've just ejected into 3" hail and a 5,000 fpm updraft. When they recover your body three states downwind it will be frozen solid from it's journey to 60,000'.

That's not my idea of fun.

Cheers!

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8570 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 3):
That being said, it would take some serious hazard pay for me to fly those missions. OK, you snap a wing, no problem, you've got a hot seat and a canopy. Well, it seems you've just ejected into 3" hail and a 5,000 fpm updraft. When they recover your body three states downwind it will be frozen solid from it's journey to 60,000'

I will tell you though, I would rather do it in an A-10 than that T-28 the article mentions.

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 572 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8354 times:

While it will eventually come out, my buddy was concerned advertising the project will lead to visitors stopping by the shop to see the plane. If I'm able to share pics of the progress I will.

I went through a cell in a Falcon 20 once and experienced a nearly instantaneous 50kt speed increase. I don't like cells Sam I am.

Cheers!

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 8154 times:

Very cool. I've always been a big fan of the A-10 and have been happy every time it escaped those who wanted it gone. Like a jet version of the A-1 Skyraider.

SLCPilot that is awesome that you have friends working on it. When you can share what they are doing I'll be glad to see it! And I'm with you on passing on that kind of mission... brave souls that volunteer for that. Remember the NASA F-106 lightning catcher?  

On a side note I thought this sentence from the OP's linked article was interesting.. "It can also fly lower than the T-28, making it ideal for air-sea interaction studies, and its heavy payload will support lidar, radar, and other imaging systems."

Lower?



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29699 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8145 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 6):
Remember the NASA F-106 lightning catcher?

Yes, did you ever see the videos from some of those flights?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8121 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 7):
Yes, did you ever see the videos from some of those flights?

Just tonight after replying to this thread... but impressive stuff! I had read about it back in middle school but the videos were new to me.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8094 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 6):

Lower?

I guess having a higher thrust:weight (and higher wing loading???) than the T-28 may give it the performance advantage to batter withstand the turbulence and escape downdraughts when flying closer to cumulogranitus or cumuloocianicus.

Just a guess though.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7832 times:

Quoting j.mo (Reply 4):

I will tell you though, I would rather do it in an A-10 than that T-28 the article mentions.

The T-28 was pretty tough, at least until too much ice started accumulating on the airframe.

http://www.avweb.com/news/profiles/184369-1.html

Quote:
We took a T-28-A model, which is the small -- 1200 horsepower -- engine Air Force trainer, and we put the Navy engine in it -- 1,425 horsepower. It's a Lycoming-built Pratt & Whitney 1820-86B and we swing a big three-bladed prop that the Navy uses. We had to go to the big engine to get up to altitude, because the airplane was built originally to max out at about 8,000 pounds, and we're flying it at around 9,000 pounds-- which is legal because our airplane is registered in the restricted category.

Paul MacCready [aeronautical engineer, weather researcher and Founder of Aerovironment, Inc.] was presented with the problem, 'Could you reinforce, do something, modify an airplane to get it through a thunderstorm and endure primarily the hail, lightening, and the turbulence?' and he took the task on, and what he came up with was modifications to this aircraft. What we did is we put about .0060- to .0070-thick armor plating on the leading edge of the wings, on the leading edges of the horizontal stabilizer and the vertical stabilizer, and around the cowl. The canopy is armor-plated on the top and the sides. We use a 3/4" Lexan windshield with a slant to it -- like a fighter windshield. I've had the hail pounding off the windshield so loud I couldn't even hear, so I'm not concerned about the windshield giving any ground.

We have a laser on the left wing which has a six-inch laser beam between two big pylons. I can count, sort, and evaluate hail going by, and it runs all that through the computer. When I start hearing hail impacts the laser will pick it up and my controller on the ground says, 'You're getting hail,' and I say, 'I'll confirm that.' We have smaller lasers which pick up smaller particles, right on down to the micros, and we have good temperature sensors.

We have two G-meter devices that pick up pitch and roll, so attitude data gets fed back to ground. We carry a camera on board on the right wing, and it's kind of in its infancy. It works good except when it gets iced over, and we're working on a de-icing system to keep it a little clearer.


[Edited 2012-06-11 01:46:45]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7547 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 10):
Paul MacCready

Had dinner with him and a few other pioneers once........I can't really put it in words.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7482 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 6):
Remember the NASA F-106 lightning catcher?

Yes! You can still see it at the Virginia Air and Space Center in Hampton, VA.

http://www.vasc.org/exhibits/aircraft/convair.html


User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1441 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting j.mo (Thread starter):
I thought it was interesting and certainly the right airplane to fly the mission.

This aircraft does so much and does it well, why does the Air Force keep trying to get rid of it?

And IMHO, it will still do a better job than the F-35 in the CAS role!



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6804 times:

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 13):
This aircraft does so much and does it well, why does the Air Force keep trying to get rid of it?

And IMHO, it will still do a better job than the F-35 in the CAS role!

The Air Force is not trying to get rid of it. They will fly the things until they can't fly anymore. They are going to right size the force to get the longest life they can out of the number they need for A-10 specific missions. It is not really comparable to the F-35. What they mean when they say the F-35 will "replace" the A-10 is that they won't be buying a new version of the A-10.

What will most likely happen is they will curtail the A-10 force in the post-Afghanistan future and use the ones they can stuff in the boneyard to keep the active ones flying for a very long time.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 6581 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 14):
What they mean when they say the F-35 will "replace" the A-10 is that they won't be buying a new version of the A-10.

But what we are reading the F-35 is an over priced piece of junk and can't replace the A-10 for the role it provides!!!


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 6581 times:

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 13):
This aircraft does so much and does it well, why does the Air Force keep trying to get rid of it?

And IMHO, it will still do a better job than the F-35 in the CAS role!

Because they love spending our money.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6373 times:

Quoting fridgmus (Reply 13):
This aircraft does so much and does it well, why does the Air Force keep trying to get rid of it?

They're not trying at all to get rid of it. You might have some bad info.

See: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2134


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6371 times:

Would they sell if some allies wanted to buy some? There is not many planes like it in the market.

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6306 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):
Would they sell if some allies wanted to buy some? There is not many planes like it in the market.

There is a reason the A-10 never sold to any other nation. It is a pretty mission specific platform that only really appeals to a nation that can afford a niche aircraft. The current incarnation, the A-10C, is much more flexible but is still at its best in a very permissive air defense environment. If you can afford to keep an aircraft type flying that will mostly be useful for COIN operations and CAS against pretty old or badly degraded air defense systems then it is great. Most nations can't so they do without and go for more multi-role aircraft.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 15):

But what we are reading the F-35 is an over priced piece of junk and can't replace the A-10 for the role it provides!!!

That is the Air Force's way of saying two things.

1. For the set of missions the A-10 fly's really well that other planes can't do there is not a better replacement.
2. When the A-10 airframes run out of life we are basically going to lose some of that capability because it would be too expensive to build a new airframe with that capability given the environment right now.

It is best to think of the A-10 in the same way as the F-14. They were fairly specialized aircraft that as the Cold War went away are giving way to more generalist aircraft. The F-14 was in a much worse way than the A-10, which is a very valuable aircraft in a place like Afghanistan but it is hard to start a development program that will be very expensive for something like a new A-10, just like it would be hard to get funds to make a new F-14 (ie build a large, missile heavy interceptor).


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6134 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 19):
It is best to think of the A-10 in the same way as the F-14. They were fairly specialized aircraft that as the Cold War went away are giving way to more generalist aircraft. The F-14 was in a much worse way than the A-10, which is a very valuable aircraft in a place like Afghanistan but it is hard to start a development program that will be very expensive for something like a new A-10, just like it would be hard to get funds to make a new F-14 (ie build a large, missile heavy interceptor).

I don't quite agree with you BigJKU.

They are similar in the sense that they were maybe 'too much' of an aircraft for what remained of their cold war roles as originally conceived. The F-14's most powerful weapon, the phoenix, became largely irrelevant when ROE's demanded visual aquisition before firing reducing engagement range down to less than the Amraam, a cheaper, smaller weapon deployable across multiple platforms. However the flying qualities of the F-14 which enabled it to employ the Phoenix from a carrier are more in demand now than ever. The Tomcat had a combination of speed, loiter, payload and endurance capabilities that no other fast jet could match. Its deployed role was very specialised but the jet itself was a better generalist than any other. Where it became outdated was on the technological and budget side of things. The A and B models were largely analog and would have required far too much work/money to integrate any new weapons onto airframes running out of hours. The digital D's represented too small a force to contenance putting up with the maintenace cost when newer more 'efficient' alternatives were waiting in the wings. But the F-14 had a big part to play in the early years of Afghanistan and funnily enough it was in the FAC role that it excelled.

A bit like saying that a Rolls Royce is excellent at towing a caravan, very true but so is an F150.

With the A-10 there is no better single weapon to engage a hoard of invading tanks than the GAU-8 in an A-10 but in any other scenario stand-off weapons offer a lower risk option for engaging less numerous enemy. The conundrum for military planners in the CAS/COIN role is that a 30mm cannon shell is a much cheaper way of taking out a 50cal machine gun in the back of a 20 year old toyota pick up than a €100,000+ smart weapon. But employing that 30mm cannon brings your $30million A-10 in range of black market stinger missile. I think you'll find that in WW2 more T34's and Shermans fell to panzerfausts and mines than to Tiger tanks. To protect against MANPADS the A-10's had to operate at an altitude unsuitable to employment of the GAU-8. But again the A-10 has highly sought after flying qualities of loiter, payload and endurance particularly suited to CAS/COIN

So if you want to compare them, they both lost the use of their primary weapon because of ROE's. Other USN airframe types were capable of filling the remainder of the F-14's role to an acceptable level. No other USAF airframe types can do the remaining A-10 roles to an acceptable level. The F-14 is confined to history (at least in US hands), the A-10 will fly on until 2028 at least by some accounts.

[Edited 2012-06-26 17:31:50]

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6095 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 20):
So if you want to compare them, they both lost the use of their primary weapon because of ROE's. Other USN airframe types were capable of filling the remainder of the F-14's role to an acceptable level. No other USAF airframe types can do the remaining A-10 roles to an acceptable level. The F-14 is confined to history (at least in US hands), the A-10 will fly on until 2028 at least by some accounts.

I would largely agree here that the A-10 will be around for a while because it is an effective COIN aircraft. I think the main reason it survives and the F-14 didn't is that while both were adaptable the A-10 is an affordable platform for the roles needed for it and the F-14 really wasn't in any incarnation.

Quoting spudh (Reply 20):
With the A-10 there is no better single weapon to engage a hoard of invading tanks than the GAU-8 in an A-10

I would and do disagree with this. At the time of inception this might have made sense but at this point the role the A-10 would have played against a large, advancing mechanized force would be played by fast aircraft using CBU-97/105's which would be far more effective in that role. In its original role I think the A-10 is pretty much done. But like you said, it will be around for a long while because it can be cheaply operated as a persistent presence in a low threat air environment.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5901 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 21):
I would and do disagree with this. At the time of inception this might have made sense but at this point the role the A-10 would have played against a large, advancing mechanized force would be played by fast aircraft using CBU-97/105's which would be far more effective in that role. In its original role I think the A-10 is pretty much done. But like you said, it will be around for a long while because it can be cheaply operated as a persistent presence in a low threat air environment.

Fair point, in my own head I was thinking of when it first entered service but thats not the way I wrote it. The A-10 probably still serves as a deterent but you are right that sensor fuzed weapons are a much lower risk solution to a large scale deployment of tanks in modern warfare.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5763 times:

I just looked at some A-10 clips from YouTube, damn that sound the cannon makes is scary, there is one clip where British soldiers are a bit too close for comfort, they must have soiled their pants..scary killing machine, brutal.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A-10 To Be Used For Atmospheric Research
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Il-96 To Be Offered For KC-X posted Fri Mar 19 2010 18:43:25 by Shmertspionem
Could The CSeries Be Used For Military Tasks? posted Tue Oct 6 2009 19:44:42 by Alberchico
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
Will The J-10 Fighter Be Sold To Iran? posted Thu Nov 22 2007 12:34:53 by Alberchico
CVN-77, USS Bush, To Be Christened 10/7/06 posted Thu Oct 5 2006 07:07:21 by BladeLWS
Push For R&D On New Bomber, 23 B1-Bs To Be Spared posted Sat May 10 2003 03:30:29 by AvObserver
UK To Revert To F35B Fighter For RN posted Mon Apr 16 2012 13:21:45 by chuchoteur
Want To Be A Helo Pilot In The Danish Navy? posted Fri Nov 18 2011 19:01:41 by canoecarrier
Any DC8's Used For Tankers? posted Sun Jul 10 2011 14:20:27 by Max Q
Second Ford Class Carrier To Be Name JFK. posted Sat Jun 18 2011 15:15:11 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format