A-10 Thunderbolt II and the USAF

If an honest, fact-based study were to show that the value provided by the A-10 could be accomplished more effectively or cost-effectively by other platfroms, fine. It's been almost fifty years since the requirement for the A-10 was formulated; it's certainly not impossible that evolving technology and changing threats might favor something else. We just don't see much evidence of comprehensive, unbiased analysis; and the Air Force does not build confidence when it resorts to planting distorted new stories, suppressing dissent, and manipulating the flow of information to Congress.

Congressional support for the A-10 is a significant point. Many Congressmen are sincere and knowledgeable about defense, but there is also a strong concern for money and jobs in their districts. New construction seems likely to generate more investment than keeping an existing system in service. Congressional bias would tend to be in favor of things like the F-35 or a next-generation bomber. We've also seen Congress insist on continued new construction of existing systems like tanks or ships beyond what the services themselves request. Keeping an old weapon like the A-10 in service must mean they really believe in it.

 

Something new. Fifty three year old "Ghost Rider" resurrected from the Boneyard. Will be flying again!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/21/us/arizona-b-52-restored/index.html

 

Never ever, the F14 is the king of LR interceptor / fighter. Maybe only rivaled by later versions SU27/33 series.

I don´t know how much missiles F22 or F35 can carry, but F14 could carry 8-10 ! Even EF and Rafale don´t have that much. From these 6 (!) could be LR missiles (Phoenix, Sparrow, Amraam).....For LR intercept number of good missiles, good range and top radar are priority. But F18 has more ground attack value.

 

F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets, which replace F-14's, can carry up to 12 and a greater variety then the Tomcats. The Super Hornets are fully upgradable, where the Tomcats had well exceeded their operational life span.

The Marine Corps still flies the F-18C/D until those will be replaced by the F-35 STOL Variant; however, If they can ever figure out how to cram an A-10 on an LPD the Warthog would have a long life in the Marines.

 

Super Hornet I don´t know (I am more specialist in cold war and 90ties era, so I am not up to latest developments granted).... but this article says, both AC are not really comparable:

In FAC(A) Forward Air Controller (Airborne) mission both aircrafts have some strengths and weaknesses: while the Tomcat had a greater on-station time than the Super Hornet, the F/A-18 has an integrated cockpit and for air-to ground missions has the capability to carry not only Laser Guided Bombs (LGBs) and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), but also High Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) and Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOWs) which the F-14 could not carry. Still, the F-14 could carry a reconnaissance pod whereas the F-18 can fly as a buddy refueler.
Anyway, thanks to its eleven weapon stations, the Super Hornet is more flexible than the Tomcat and it can carry a larger array of air-to-ground ordnance.
So the F/A-18E/F is a great aircraft and a very versatile strike fighter. Still, it’s a Legacy Hornet evolution and it’s not as revolutionary as the F-14 was when it entered the active service in the ’70s, as the most experienced Tomcat driver, Capt. Dale “Snort” Snodgrass, once said.
And, although it was an old plane, according to a female U.S. Navy RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) the F-14 was also a sexy aircraft: “The Super Hornet is a wonderful jet,..s only going to get better. But it will never be cool. The Tomcat was cool. I know sexy when I see it.”

http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/21/tomcat-vs-hornet/

 

That was my impression too. There is a catch tho, if the F35 needs to fly higher, it comes into range of a lot of AA missiles and radars. As I pointed out new radars can detect stealthy A/C better.
IMHO it still important to fly as low as possible in high threat environments, so radar can not pick you up easily. That of course isn´t important if you fight only forces that DONT have good AA/radar. What you need down below is either a very fast A/C with special low flying system (SU24M, Tornado, F111) or one that is highly surviveable and armored...(A10, SU25).I have a bit personal experience in AA stuff, so maybe my advise isn´t the worst in this regard

Fave:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtAThLpxmxw

Edit. Found this vid about F35 (a bit sarcastic tho)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkcHT9FZohA

 

That would be true IF they had Marine Corps or Navy pilots at the controls, if they still had Airforce pilots and the Airforce command maintains it's lack of desire to train for CAS, I don't think the Marines would be too keen on having them. Like I said earlier, the #1 cause of fatalities for Marines in Desert Storm/Shield and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was the A-10.

 

The Air Force does have a very loose IFF protocol. I think the numbers for Desert Shield/ Storm also included a bunch due to not using ground guides, when driving in reverse. Seems that the numbers only differed by 1 or 2 between training deaths and combat.

 

While the A-10 could probably be made to land on the Wasp or America classes for it to take off with it's full load they would have to have ski-jump ramp. The only real obstacle I can see it the size of it, Could the wings be made to fold up with out affecting the strength of the airframe?

 

At the A-10's max gross weight, you probably going to need more than a jump ramp.

 

Fair point, Just checked take off weights for both with the AV-8B harrier at 14,100kg and the A-10 at 23,000kg.

That said ski-jump ramps have a major effect on the height the aircraft reaches, With an AV-8B harrier from a US warship starting flight about 18m above the waterline yet if t aking off from a ski-jump being 46m - 61m above the waterline... Not saying it's a guaranteed thing that would work but is something worth while looking at.

Taking off from a carrier if the frame was adapted to it wouldn't be an issue (The S-3 Viking used the same engines and weighed in at the same) if wings could be folded.

All that said, On the subject of ski-jump ramps, Why does the US not have them fitted to any of the Wasp or future America class ships?

 

Because they are primarily helicopter platforms, and the jets they operate, such as the Harrier and it's probable replacement have V/STOL capability.

 

Going up isn't the real problem...That would be coming down.

20-foot drop test of an F/A-18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUYcuS6-9RY
Another angle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prLkerS_ofA

 

I know the F14 could track a lot of targets and blast them at long range....I'm guessing with AWACS and F18, CAP is more than capable?

 

True they have V/STOL capability but if you are only going to use the vertical take off then you can only carry a fraction of the payload capacity. Most other navies that operate similar ships with a primary helicopter role still have a ski-jump ramp fitted for their limited fleet's of V/STOL aircraft.

I understand that helicopters the primary air component but when they can at times operate over a dozen V/STOL's per a ship it would seem logical to have the ramp, Allows for greater payloads and safer launches. But that's just my view..

 

The Harriers, I saw, never took off vertically; they used every inch of the flight deck. Returning to the ship was always done vertically though, well more like fly up along side the ship and kind of creep over.

 

Most other Navies carriers also are shorter than the American helicopter carriers, making a ramp an absolute necessity for flight ops of aircraft.

 

Looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II
I noticed the stall speed on the A-10 is 120 knots and it's rate of climb is less than half that of the AV-8B.
Could the AV-8B actually do a vertical take off with a full load?

 

Combat load yes.....full load it needs a bit of a roll especially if there is any distance to the target.

 

My experience also, an 800' deck gave them a pretty good takeoff run, and of course we would steam into the wind. The one time they took off vertically we were anchored in a fiord in Norway, about thirty miles inland.

For most navies other than the US, Harriers are their only carrier-based fighter/strike aircraft, so it makes more sense to sacrifice a few helo spots in favor of a ski jump.

The big issue with the A-10 on an LHA/LHD would be landing. Carrier planes need stronger landing gear and overall structure; it's rare for a plane not designed for the purpose to make a good carrier plane. Then there's arresting gear and tail hooks, unless we're going to stop an A-10 just by brakes. And of course LHA/LHDs don't have angled decks, you'd have to either clear the whole flight deck in case of a bolter or install some sort of crash barrier.