The A-10 in T2k - still the most flying?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Yeah, I know, canon says no or next-to-no avgas, etc., but putting that aside or even taking in to consideration that TAC would hold some "strategic reserves" back, I'm wondering if the A10-A wouldn't be the most-flyable fixed-wing jet in NATO air power such that it is?

The "yes" column:

- it's designed for rough-field operation
- it's really tough
- it's designed for very easy maintenance
- weapon usage doesn't rely heavily on computer systems - lots of analog in A10s up until recently with the A10-C upgrade
- Engines: this is the big one. The A10's engines are TF-30s, which are military versions of CF30s, which equip small jets the world over. Spares and replacements through adaptation should be possible.

The "no" column:

- weren't produced in huge numbers like the F4, F16 and F15
- were VERY valuable targets for WarPac AAA; the Sovs. were scared of the A10
- Unlike 20mm and 30mm rounds (as used by helos like the Apache), the 30mm A10 rounds are pretty much only for the A10...run out of those, and the A10 loses a lot of raison d'etre except as a very costly (for T2k timeline) FO/FAC bird
- using fuel on a slow-and-low CAS/COIN jet not that good an idea

Thoughts?

[Adm.Lee]

I'm sorry to say that I think the No column outweighs the Yes.

Not quite on-topic, but here's this that I just saw today:

[Raellus]

I don't know if this is pertinent but the Dutch Goalkeeper [naval] CIWS, in use from the early 1980s and still fitted to a couple of Dutch and British warships, uses the same GAU-8 multibarrel canon as the A-10 does. I don't think the Goalkeeper uses the special depleted uranium AP rounds, though- I'm not sure but I think it uses some form HE. Therefore, the ammo for the A-10 might not be as rare as you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS

[kato13]

Honestly I think by 2000 if a plane has any pros then it eventually becomes a con.

If a plane is easier to fly, it flies more, it takes more damage, it uses more parts, it is no longer easier to fly.

However the A-10 has a slightly disproportional number flying in the gulf compared to starting numbers before the war.

There are
8 F-16s
7 A-10s
2 F-14s
6 F/A-18s
4 F-18s
4 AV-8B
4 F-15s
4 A-7s

[stormlion1]

Which was the bigger fuel guzzler and the one that was needed most during a T2K lead up campaign. My money would be the A-10's stayed in service long after each sides fighter planes had shot each other down. May not be much fuel left, but there ruggedness would have kept them operational longer.

[Raellus]

Does anyone know or care to look up when the last A-10 was built? They're in the air over Tucson every day, flying out of Davis-Monthan AFB. And they've been pretty heavily used in Afghanistan. Considering that other airframes with that many flight hours have long ago been retired, it's a wonder that the USAF's A-10s are still so busy.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Does anyone know or care to look up when the last A-10 was built?

According to Wikipedia: "In total, 715 airplanes were produced, the last delivered in 1984." and also "With a variety of upgrades and wing replacements, the A-10's service life may be extended to 2028."

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

[Tegyrius]

They would be going to 2028 if the current USAF budget didn't call for them to be grounded next year. Damn it all.

Much as I'm a huge Hog fan, I don't see it being that prolific in the post-2000 environment. With aviation fuel as scarce as it is (to say nothing of spare parts, ordnance, trained aviation maintenance personnel, and trained aviators), I would expect most forces to concentrate on aircraft that can support strategic goals. Think surveillance, secure courier duty, delivery of critical supplies (e.g., vaccine), and long-range deployment and recovery of small special operations teams or key technical personnel. For most of this work, you're not looking at combat aircraft at all. When no one else has eyes in the air, a Cessna 172 and a pair of binoculars are a measurable advantage.

- C.

[Olefin]

I would think the A-10 would definitely still be flying for several reasons but the biggest ones would be

doesnt need the long runways that the F-16 and F-15 need - in fact it can operate from very rough fields that would be unusable by those planes

are very easy to maintain compared to more higher tech planes

can operate with only a Mark 1 eyeball for is targeting system and can be very effective with just its cannon and dumb bombs which are probably all that is left by 2000 for ordinance

they can take one hell of a lot of punishment and remain operational - or get back to base - meaning there may be lots of airframes that were damaged but instead of an ejection they got back home to be cannibalized

considering the fuel situation you dont need fighters to kill bombers and other fighters - you need ground support aircraft - and that means you need A-10's to stay aloft - look at it from a USA 2000 issue -

You are a MilGov commander with two operational aircraft in Oklahoma andou get a message about a Mexican force with one tank and three APC's advancing on a garrison in North Texas that only has one anti-tank missile left. You can either fuel up your F-15 that is made to kill enemy fighters and hope its 20mm cannon can do some damage while exposing it to enemy ground fire that its extremely vulnerable to.

Or you go with your A-10 which is made for that mission.

Result - the A-10 goes out and rips a new butt out of the Mexican force it finds in the open, taking out their armor easily, shrugging off the hits it takes from a 12.7mm AA gun in the process and eliminating them as a threat to your garrison in north Texas completely, then comes back still operational - where your F-15, hit that many times, would be a smoking crater in the north Texas landscape.

I would think that by 2004-2005 the only modern non-transport aircraft the US may stilll have left that they havent mothballed to conserve them for a better day would be the A-10 just because its one of the few planes made for a post apocalyptic environment to still be able to do its mission.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

They would be going to 2028 if the current USAF budget didn't call for them to be grounded next year. Damn it all.

- C.

I'm not so worried; the A-10 has escaped a myriad chopping blocks in the past and is still here.

[mikeo80]

An idea occurred to me while I was reading this thread. For units in the USA fighting the Mexican Army in Texas/ Arizona and fighting the Russians in Alaska, maybe the powers that be would beg, borrow or steal every P-47 Thunderbolt. The WWII fighter/ground support aircraft was known for its' duarabilaty, able to use iron bombs or 2.75 " rockets. The plane does have short comings, mainly it needs a rather long runway due to the height of the fuselage and the span of the propeller.

My $0.02

Mike

[Schone23666]

Lots of good points here.

And being former U.S. Air Force myself, and having no bias in favor of the U.S. Army whatsoever I can say the Air Force's recent decision (though I'm hearing it MIGHT change, we shall see) to ground the A-10's amounts to a "head, meet desk" moment.

[mpipes]

The story goes that when USAF Gen Horner arrived in Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield in 1990 and briefed USA Gen Schwarzkopf on the deploying Air Force assets, he left off any mention of the A-10. After Gen Horner finished his briefing, Gen Schwarzkopf inquired as to "when are the A-10s arriving." Gen Horner replied there were none that what he briefed was what the Air Force was deploying for the air plan and that did not include A-10s. Gen Schwarzkopf then said "General, I don't think you heard me. WHEN ARE MY A-10S ARRIVING."

Needless to say, Gen Schwarzkopf got his A-10s.

IMHO the F-35 can't do that close support mission. Stealth won't do it any good in daylight trying to deliver ordnance on target. I don't think it can carry the weapons load to do the job either. Its also madness to send an almost $100,000,000 airplane down into the AAA arena to do the A-10s mission. If they do retire the A-10, eventually it will be discovered that the F-35 can't do the mission near as well.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by mikeo80

An idea occurred to me while I was reading this thread. For units in the USA fighting the Mexican Army in Texas/ Arizona and fighting the Russians in Alaska, maybe the powers that be would beg, borrow or steal every P-47 Thunderbolt. The WWII fighter/ground support aircraft was known for its' duarabilaty, able to use iron bombs or 2.75 " rockets. The plane does have short comings, mainly it needs a rather long runway due to the height of the fuselage and the span of the propeller.

My $0.02

Mike

If they're going to go that route they need to just dust of A1 Skyraiders, then. The Spad can actually carry troops (trufax!), and takes it's own share of damage, carries 4 20mm cannon etc.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by mpipes

IMHO the F-35 can't do that close support mission. Stealth won't do it any good in daylight trying to deliver ordnance on target. I don't think it can carry the weapons load to do the job either. Its also madness to send an almost $100,000,000 airplane down into the AAA arena to do the A-10s mission. If they do retire the A-10, eventually it will be discovered that the F-35 can't do the mission near as well.

I agree; my worry is that the A10s won't be "retired", they'll be sent to D-M and chopped into scrap just as quickly as the USAF can do so, so the Army can't try and acquire them and Congress/JCS can't make them fly them again.

See the F117-A Nighthawk is "Retired" but those birds are inside, in climate-controlled storage kept in flyable condition should the need arise. If the USAF is given even an inkling that they can ship all the Warthogs off to D-M they won't hesitate to bust them up. Watch.

[Panther Al]

All I got to say - other than the A10 needs to stay in service, or at least, replaced with a newer version that shares all the capabilities of the existing one without exception - is this:

HR 4739. Put before the US House back in 91' I believe.

In it, it directs the Air Force to transfer the A10 and all supporting elements to the US Army as soon as it is deemed practicable upon the retirement of the OV1 Mohawk.

The Army held up its end: it dumped the Mohawk. Still waiting on the Air Force to do the same. I think the issue might be the Senate, and I can not find anything that says they did or did not have put its stamp on it.

[kcdusk]

Our playing party were moving at maximum speed across the wide, open, field. Breaking from their last engagement the 5 vehicles were moving at maximum speed, a massive cloud of dust easily showing their escape.

"Contact at 7'O'Clock" boomed over the radio!

All eyes moved to that direction, how could the enemy have moved into that position?

Despite all the eyes, no contact could be seen. And then, AND THEN, a massive dark cloud passed directly over the convoy! The A-10 warthog had passed at low altitude, directly over the playing parties convoy. Nobody had been checking for any contacts above the horizon!

"Break break break!' and each of the 5 vehicles spread out and headed for wood lands at different points of the compass. The Hog gave one vehicle a mouthful of 30mm, and another vehicle got a 110mm shot that exploded nearby.

4 hours later. Under the cover of darkness, each of the 5 vehicles re-grouped. The playing partys conversation goes like this;

Player 1: we need, neeeed to get outahere! Thats an A10! Its going to rip us 5 new ones!!!

Player 2: No, we need to continue, we could capture this thing!

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

All I got to say - other than the A10 needs to stay in service, or at least, replaced with a newer version that shares all the capabilities of the existing one without exception - is this:

HR 4739. Put before the US House back in 91' I believe.

In it, it directs the Air Force to transfer the A10 and all supporting elements to the US Army as soon as it is deemed practicable upon the retirement of the OV1 Mohawk.

The Army held up its end: it dumped the Mohawk. Still waiting on the Air Force to do the same. I think the issue might be the Senate, and I can not find anything that says they did or did not have put its stamp on it.

In my mind, there are a lot of aircraft that belong in the Army. The A-10, the Harrier, the F-35B (if it ever appears as a decent platform, it's not now), the C-23, the Osprey, the Pucara, and probably more that are escaping me at the moment. The A-10 and the Pucara, in particular, make excellent ground support aircraft.

[Matt Wiser]

Since half of the active A-10 fleet is in the Guard or AFRES, watch for the Senators and Congresscritters whose districts have such units to fight tooth and nail to preserve them. You might even have the entire A-10 fleet go to the ANG to make the active AF happy (a la the A-7 back in the '70s).

[Sanjuro]

We had a lecture once from an A-10 pilot who reckoned they would all survive WW3, as they flew so slowly the war would be over by the time they reached the front...

[Olefin]

actually that might mean the Russians are all out of missiles shooting down F-16's and 15's so the A-10's catch them in their reload cycle?

[Olefin]

One thing about an A-10 is that it could be possible you could see ones being used by people establishing little "bandit" kingdoms and duchies in Europe - its low maintenance, low fuel consumption and perfect to kick the butt of those pesky Germans or Czechs who dont like that you are now the Grand Booba of Fulda but they dont have any remaining air support or more importantly AA missiles to oppose it - especially if you have a couple operational oil wells and a small efining capability so you can have a few tanks of fuel to keep her in the air and a couple basic ammo loads looted from a long abandoned NATO air base to use on your less friendly neighbors

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I'm sorry to say that I think the No column outweighs the Yes.

Not quite on-topic, but here's this that I just saw today:

I wonder what A-10 Pilot came up with this how can a aircraft with a range of under 280 NMI be a muilt role aircraft?

Ok lets look at the A-10 Mulit Missions

Close Air Support close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces OK I get it Yes the A-10 can do this mission

Strike Control and Reconnaissance (SCAR), is a mission flown for the purpose of detecting targets and coordinating or performing attack or reconnaissance on those targets Strike coordination and reconnaissance missions are flown in a specific geographic area and are an element of the command and control interface to coordinate multiple flights detect and attack targets neutralize enemy air defences and provide battle damage assessment. Not sure dose the A-10 and modern comm suite that can handle this also can you put a camera on the A-10 and dose it lack of speed make thses flight unwise?

Combat search and rescue (CSAR) are search and rescue operations that are carried out during war that are within or near combat zones. A CSAR mission may be carried out by a task force of helicopters, ground-attack aircraft, aerial refuelling tankers and an airborne command post.

The USAF HC-130, which was introduced in 1965, has served in the latter two roles

Air interdiction (AI), also known as deep air support (DAS), is the use of aircraft to attack tactical ground targets that are not in close proximity to friendly ground forces. It differs from close air support because it does not directly support ground operations and is not closely coordinated with ground units. Unlike strategic bombing, air interdiction is not meant as an independent air campaign, as its ultimate purpose is to aid ground operations rather than to defeat the enemy by air power alone. Can't F-15 or B-1 with smart weaposn to the same thing?

Forward Air Control Aircraft (FAC-A), Forward air control is the provision of guidance to Close Air Support aircraft intended to ensure that their attack hits the intended target and does not injure friendly troops. This task is carried out by a forward air controller may form part of a Fire Support Team or Tactical Air Control Party, they may be ground based, airborne in fixed-wing aircraft or in helicopters It only has a pilot and agian is lack of range might hamper it use in this role

Anti Maritime (AM) is concerned with the suppression of surface combatants. More generally, it is any weapons, sensors, or operations intended to attack or limit the effectiveness of an adversary's surface ships.

Today, air anti maritime is generally conducted by stand-off attacks using air-launched cruise missiles or air-to-surface missiles.

[Olefin]

remember we are talking about what would be flying in 2000 and needed in 2000

unless you are in the Middle East the days of air combat are over (unless you count dirigibles and ultra lights over Arkansas) as are long range bombing missions (when aviation fuel is literally being watched over like gold bricks today)

so what is left to use scarce aviation fuel on

transport flights

patrol/recon

close air support - especially when your side doesnt have tanks and they do - which given the fact that the US left most of their tanks in Germany is a fact of life for both MilGov and CivGov

the A-10 is perfect for two of those missions - and actually can perform the counter air mission as well if needed when the planes they are engaging are dirigibles, ultra lights and the odd Cessna or Piper Cub that New America managed to get into the air


and I dont agree with what canon says about next to no av gas - there are still working oil wells and refineries in the US - it didnt say 100 percent knockout it said 60 percent - and if you process a 42 gallon barrel of oil you will get 4 gallons of jet fuel from it along with lubricants, gasoline and diesel fuel

plus as "A River Runs Thru It" explained their is still air transport going on between MilGov in New England and the rest of the US with the air facilities in NJ acting as a landing and refueling station - that doesnt mean anyone is swimming in it but it does mean they have enough for essential missions - so the question is what aircraft get parked and what get used?

F-15's and B-1's are great but unless there is a need to lay down a load of whoopass on a big target or the Russians in San Antonio get their hands on that off shore air platform and get all those helos airborne again they really dont hav a mission in 2000

[rcaf_777]

Another Question should be what is it going to carry?

what is the us going to have left is the way of aircraft muntions? I thinking that Iron Dumb Bombs are about all that left but where do you think that they would be kept?

Would the location surrive the war intact?

[Olefin]

Most likely ammunition dumps were dispersed early in the war - and the Colorado Springs government has been moving stuff that way since 1998 - so possibly they may have moved a lot of ordinance that way along with the nuclear warheads they grabbed

and there are a lot of old dumb bombs around - if you postulate that the Gulf War didnt occur then the US may still have stuff left over from WWII and Korea and Vietnam that can be used

and compared to making missiles and smart weapons, making ammo for the Gatling Gun is a lot easier done -

[Rainbow Six]

Re: A10's in the United States, I presume that the vast majority of Warthogs would have forward deployed to the various combat theatres during the opening months of the War where they were most needed, so any remaining in the US would most likely have been used in training roles (plus maybe the 18th Tactical Fighter Squadron in Alaska).

I know that A10 training is now done at Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, but does anyone know which base would have carried out pilot training in the late 1990's in the T2K timline? It seems to me that area would be the most likely location to find any A10's that are still in the US in the year 2000.

[Olefin]

Just to give you an idea here are the ANG squadrons that operated it during the time the Twilight War would have occurred

103d Fighter Wing - Bradley ANGB, Connecticut 1979-2008
118th Fighter Squadron

104th Fighter Wing - Barnes ANGB, Massachusetts 1979-2007
131st Fighter Squadron

110th Fighter Wing - Battle Creek, Michigan 1991–2009
172d Fighter Squadron

111th Fighter Wing - NAS/JRB Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 1988-2011
103d Fighter Squadron

115th Fighter Wing - Truax Field, Wisconsin 1981-93
176th Tactical Fighter Squadron

174th Fighter Wing - Syracuse, New York 1979-89
138th Fighter Squadron

Meaning you could have spares, ammo, etc.. at any of those bases still around in 2000 - and that doesnt count training squadrons and other deployments

[Olefin]

As to ammo - more than 100,000,000 rounds were made for the GAU-8/A in our timeline - give the Cold War not coming to an end and the war itself - and the fact that the Dutch and other navies used the gun as an AA gun - there are most likely a lot of rounds still in storage

and while the AP round needs depleted uranium the HE round - the PGU-13/B doesnt need it - its the same round if I remember right that the Apache uses

so ammo for the gun wont be a problem for any surviving A-10's - in fact that is probably why they will still be effective support aircraft - I doubt by 2000 the US military has many surviving Mavericks or other guided munitions left - but the A-10 pilot just needs his eyes

and his slower approach speed means all he needs is his eyes to get on target

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Unfortunately the AH-64 and the A-10 cannons don't use the same round.
The 30mm ammo for the AH-64 is 30x113mm
The 30mm ammo for the A-10 is 30x173mm
Even the projectiles are different so that ruins any idea of salvaging one to make the other