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]

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]

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]

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]

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.