On the A-10 Warthog

[Brad Johnson]

Holy crap, according to Wikipedia (it must be false!) the standard ammo loadout for this thing is 1,150 round! I never dreamed it was that much.

What's even more amazing it the 1100+ round loadout supports only 16 seconds of sustained fire at the Avenger's max cyclic rate (4000 rounds/min).  But what a glorious 16 seconds it is.

Brad

[K Frame]

The gun (barrels, breeches, & bolts) weigh less than 700 pounds...

The rest of the stuff the gun needs brings it up to over 2 tons...

[Ben]

I can seem to be overly dismissive of air superiority. Multi-role fighters are important. Very important. But they will NEVER do CAS like an A-10. Physics are a harsh mistress. If you want supersonic aircraft, you need wildly different characteristics than something designed for subsonic performance. You can't bolt on a different weapons loadout and replicate the same capacity. An A-10 can't do supercruise and an F-22 can't do repeated gun runs on enemy forces at 200ft AGL at 130 knots.

This is the part that I don't get. How will the F-35 mimic low and slow capabilities? As Rev said, totally different airframe designs.

On Mike's comment on ammo loadout - I have to find the video again, but not only is the amount of ammo impressive, so is the system they have (that I saw on the video) for loading / unloading the GAU-8. Really slick engineering.

[Scout26]

Here's my version of how design planning for the A-10 went:

Build a big [censored] gun.
...
Nope, bigger.
...
I said *BIGGER*....
...
Ok, now make it a gatling gun....
...
No, I want it to be able to fire 4,200 rounds per minute...
...
Ok, now build a plane around that gun.

That's actually pretty close to how it went.  The AF had this GAU-8, then went to several manufacturer's and said "Build a CAS plane around this."

I also wholeheartedly agree with Rev's statements.   We used to watch A-10 out of Bitburg come and do gun and bomb runs on the Baumholder MTA.  And the standard comment after watching them do their thing was "I'm glad their on our side."


And while the current inventory of A-10s are getting long in the tooth, we still have 60 year-old B-52's flying.   There are options.  Build new A-10 airframes.  Design a new CAS aircraft.  It probably won't be the quantum leap that the A-10 was from Skyraider, but it will be newer.  Or just give the CAS mission back to the Army.  While they will never admit it public, the AF (in general) hates the CAS mission.  They only use it as an excuse to grab more of the DOD budget.  It's pretty much the Fighter Jocks v the Bomber Guys (not so much as during the Cold War) v the Trash Haulers.  The CAS guys are the red-headed bastard stepchildren in that mix.

As someone stated in a different thread the airspace below 10,000 is referred to as "Indian Country" as it pretty much the domain of (Indian named) Helicopters, which are predominately Army assets.  Since A-10's are designed to operate from austere forward bases (No Room Service, much less hotels with fresh towels), at low altitudes giving them to the Army (and Marines, perhaps with a redesigned/re-built airframe with folding wings) to operate makes complete sense.  The lack of dedicated CAS support from the USAF is what prompted the Army to develop attack helicopters in the first place. 

[K Frame]

That's actually pretty close to how it went.  The AF had this GAU-8, then went to several manufacturer's and said "Build a CAS plane around this."

No, they were developed concurrently as part of the same master program.

The Air Force wasn't interested in developing, building, and having a huge-ass gun sitting around in stores and only later coming up with a plane to hump the thing.

The concept teams worked up the ideas based on input as to what would make a great ground support/tank killing aircraft, and one of the main things was a gun that was more accurate and had LOTS more punch than the 20mm units that had been employed before that. Supposedly that came out of the limited experience of the 20mm trying to deal with North Vietnamese armor and having some problems.

The base ammunition, 30x173mm has been adapted into a number of other multi and single barrel guns.

[roo_ster]

Well... The mission requirements was "close range CAS", which all but specified the GAU-8 Avenger. And the aircraft was designed around the weapon.

So... Actually, yes. Pretty much.


I know I've upset plenty of USAF folks by claiming the USAF has little interest in CAS specific airframes or giving any airframes to the Army.

I'm probably overly... assertive? in that line of thought, I admit that. The youngest A-10 airframe is 30 years old. The oldest, 42. Older an airframe gets, more maintenance it needs and more likely it is to break. And the average A-10 airframe is subjected to significantly different stresses than most cargo haulers.

That said, it is damn near criminal to lose the A-10. If you gave me the option of throwing every F-35 into the ocean in exchange for a thousand A-10's and better ADA or going with our projected F-35 procurement schedule, I'd build a gorram F-35 catapult out of my own gorram pocket. Your optimal CAS aircraft is low, slow, good line of sight at the ground, maneuverable, long loiter intervals, and hoards bombs like a proper APS'er hoards ammo.

I can seem to be overly dismissive of air superiority. Multi-role fighters are important. Very important. But they will NEVER do CAS like an A-10. Physics are a harsh mistress. If you want supersonic aircraft, you need wildly different characteristics than something designed for subsonic performance. You can't bolt on a different weapons loadout and replicate the same capacity. An A-10 can't do supercruise and an F-22 can't do repeated gun runs on enemy forces at 200ft AGL at 130 knots.

The GAU-8 Avenger is a beautiful weapon, but it's not just about looks. It's the ability to put rounds on target at extremely close ranges without injuring friendlies. Few artillery rounds or missiles can kill a target with virtually no risk to friendly forces in the open at distances of 20 or 30 meters. Only kinetic weapons can do so, which we DO have, usually normal munitions with the payload replaced with concrete. Concrete is a surprisingly handy weapon for urban combat.


The House FY 2015 spending bill blocks A-10 retirement. Be sure to call your Congresscritter and let them know that a vote for retirement of the A-10 is damn near the same thing as treason until we have something that's the same or better.


I was the commo dork for a combined fire exercise of an entire division's worth of artillery (three regiments) and a half dozen A-10.

Never have I felt closer to the Gods than I did that day. Closest I can describe it is that it sounded like a particularly nasty bar fight between many angry trains.

Pretty much all that.

The only other thing in our arsenal that could compete with the A-10 is the Apache and Cobras but those both have limited range.

That saying if I'm in the fight I would never turn any of them away if they are there.

More limited range, slower, more likely to get hit, more likely to be turned into burning wreckage if they are hit.

===============

I am disappointed that the Osprey has not moved into the CAS role.  Looking at it, I can understand that.  Lower T/W ratio before adding guns or armor, less maneuverable in forward flight, not as tolerant of having bits shot off.

A "new" A-10 would be something that could be both carrier and land based, so the USMC could get into the act and maybe even the US Navy.  And it could operate on land under even more austere conditions.  I don't think VTOL is necessary, just STOL.  Sort of an updated A-10 with carrier-capable landing gear; folding wings; maybe more involved flaps, leading edge slats, vortex generators, and spoilers.  

[Ben]

Found the video that has the loading system. I cut it to that portion, but the entire video is pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=195

[TechMan]

"And the aircraft was designed around the weapon."

Both, actually, as in the GAU-8 was also designed around the framework of the A-10.

The gun and the plane were developed concurrently, with the contractor teams (different companies) working very closely together at every step of the process.

Holy crap, according to Wikipedia (it must be false!) the standard ammo loadout for this thing is 1,150 round! I never dreamed it was that much.

Nope...it is true.  Here is a video interviewing the 127th Wing of the MI Air National Guard and they state the load out is 1,150 rounds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ

[Brad Johnson]

Also notable is that the 16,000 lb hard point loadout of the lowly A10 is fully twice the ordinance load of a WWII B17 bomber

Brad

[wmenorr67]

Hell design a turboprop to do the mission.

[Firethorn]

Crazy pie-in-the-sky thought: develop a STOL variant that can be operated from Wasp class amphibious assault ships?

That's part of the problem, actually.  The tooling for making A-10s was destroyed ages ago, if I remember the story correctly partially on the orders of a General hoping to kill the planes as they weren't sexy fighters.

As such, it would actually be cheaper to create a NEW plane that matches the A-10's specifications, but once you're doing that you might as well stretch and EXCEED the A-10's abilities, creating a better, more capable aircraft.

Once you're doing that you fall into the same trap as the F-22 and F-35 programs, costs balloon as they try to shove every iota of capability into the craft that they possibly can, and the program ends up being a flop.

edit:  Oh yeah, and adding folding wings, VTOL/STOL capabilities adds weight and complexity - a folding wing will never be as light or strong as a fixed wing, and you want light for range, munitions load, and such and strong so it can take a hit and still keep flying.

[roo_ster]

That's part of the problem, actually.  The tooling for making A-10s was destroyed ages ago, if I remember the story correctly partially on the orders of a General hoping to kill the planes as they weren't sexy fighters.

As such, it would actually be cheaper to create a NEW plane that matches the A-10's specifications, but once you're doing that you might as well stretch and EXCEED the A-10's abilities, creating a better, more capable aircraft.

Once you're doing that you fall into the same trap as the F-22 and F-35 programs, costs balloon as they try to shove every iota of capability into the craft that they possibly can, and the program ends up being a flop.

Not if you hire me as "Deputy PM for Beatings and Requirements Creep." 

"Hi Bob.  Hi Bob's team.  Now Bob, I heard a rumor you were going to suggest a technology solution for Subsystem X that was less then TRL 6.  I am sure that it is completely false, since if you were to do so, I would beat you to within an inch of your life and waterboard your engineers until they grew gills.  Oh, see you at the all-hands meeting Tuesday!  Would not want to miss seeing our soon to be former sub-contractors commit ritual seppuku for their lobbying of the customer to add an air-to-air combat requirement."

[RevDisk]

Pretty much all that.

More limited range, slower, more likely to get hit, more likely to be turned into burning wreckage if they are hit.

===============

I am disappointed that the Osprey has not moved into the CAS role.  Looking at it, I can understand that.  Lower T/W ratio before adding guns or armor, less maneuverable in forward flight, not as tolerant of having bits shot off.

A "new" A-10 would be something that could be both carrier and land based, so the USMC could get into the act and maybe even the US Navy.  And it could operate on land under even more austere conditions.  I don't think VTOL is necessary, just STOL.  Sort of an updated A-10 with carrier-capable landing gear; folding wings; maybe more involved flaps, leading edge slats, vortex generators, and spoilers.  

Osprey can't be used for CAS. Tail gun is as good as it gets.  There was talk of a gun pod, but after talking with folks, you'd need a dedicated gunner. And the gun pod would suck, due to the layout and sizing issues.


Not sure why folks make such a big deal about tooling. There are a couple midsized aerospace companies that could easily replicate effective replacements. It would add time to the project, but not a huge amount of money. Or you can just accept that the parts will not be interchangeable.

But yes, it is likely the manufacturer would destroy the tooling.  We did on the Comanche project out of spite.

[Firethorn]

Not if you hire me as "Deputy PM for Beatings and Requirements Creep." 

Makes me wish this forum had a 'like' button.  I'd like to be in this position as well.

Also notable is that the 16,000 lb hard point loadout of the lowly A10 is fully twice the ordinance load of a WWII B17 bomber

Makes me wonder what the Germans of WWII would have thought if we 'replaced' all the B17s with A-10s.
Size: (A10) 53x57x15 vs 75x104x19 (B-17) - A-10 is substantially smaller
Weight: 28k lbs:36k - but only somewhat lighter unloaded
Crew: 1 vs 10 - much easier to man
Max speed: 439 mph vs 287 mph - Intercepting the A-10 will be a lot more difficult
Range: 474 miles vs 2,001 - B-17 cleans up here. 
Ceiling: 34,695 vs 35,597 - roughly equivalent.
Weapons: 30MM GAU-8 vs 10-11 12.7mm machine guns.  After some consideration, I'll go with the 30mm.  It might 'only' be 1 gun, but by golly anything shot with it is going to know it.
16k pounds vs 17.6k pounds - Oops, looks like the B-17 can carry more.  I think your search got pounds and kg confused.  The comparison site I found has the B-17 rated at 8k kg/17.6k pounds bombload, while it lists the A-10 as 16k pounds/7.2k kg. 

Reviewing the web, the A-10 would make for an acceptable WWII fighter, especially if you adjusted the sights a bit.  But you'd have to go with supplemental fuel tanks to make up for the B-17 having roughly 4x the combat radius of the A-10, which cuts into your bomb load.  But even if you disallow smart munitions the A-10 would be able to place bombs on target more accurately through improved targeting equipment and lower altitudes(which it can survive better due to speed&armor).

[Brad Johnson]

17k was a "only if hell is freezing over and this is absolutely, positively the only way we can get this done" rating.  Getting a B17 airborne at that payload required borderline catastrophic engine overboost along with a frighteningly long takeoff run.  (Some aircraft used water/methanol injection or NOS as on-demand power adders.)  Fuel consumption increases from the added weight cut combat radii down to just hundreds of miles.  Standard payload was 8k.  Max range payload was a mere 4k.  The A10's 16k rating is standard loadout.

Brad

[Firethorn]

17k was a "only if hell is freezing over and this is absolutely, positively the only way we can get this done" rating.

Thank you for clearing that up.  At least I did some research, right?

Yeah, wiki lists range as 2k miles with 6k pounds of bombs.  Do you know whether that would be round trip, or 'combat radius'? 

Still, sounds like the A-10 can pretty much match it - it's got a HUGE ferry distance even if it 'only' has around 250 miles of combat radius that includes loiter/combat time.

Inserted into WWII, it could 'scream in' at high speeds for the time, drop it's load, wrestle with responding fighters a bit, then zoom off.

[RocketMan]

Also notable is that the 16,000 lb hard point loadout of the lowly A10 is fully twice the ordinance load of a WWII B17 bomber

Brad

Umm....no.  Max bomb load of the B-17G was 17,600 pounds.  Using hard points between the inboard engines and the fuselage brought it up to 20,400 pounds.  Those high loads did, however, require lower fuel loads as the max rated TOW was around 65,000 lbs.  Even so, there were occasions where B-17s flew missions where their gross weight exceeded 80,000 pounds.  Tough old birds they were.
Typical bomb loads on a mission into France and beyond ran 4,000 to 8,000 pounds, always trading fuel and range for bomb load.
The max airspeed of the B-17G was either 302 mph or 320 mph, I disremember as it's been awhile since I last looked it up.  Typical cruise was on a mission much less, of course.  On SJ we typically babied it at around 150 to save gas and wear and tear on the R1820-87 engines.  It was about $20k to rebuild one back in '88.  I hate to think how much it is now.
In all my poking around in the innards of SJ, I don't recall seeing any signs of hardware related to water or methanol injection.  Not saying it didn't exist, just don't recall seeing remnants.  We could see leftover stuff for a lot of gear that had been in and out of the bird over the years.
I also don't recall reading about that option, but then, it has been a long time since I messed with the airplane.  I've got a copy of the manual around here somewhere...

Eta to correct max bomb load weight.

[wmenorr67]

Imagine if we had air-air refueling back in WWII.

[RevDisk]

Imagine if we had air-air refueling back in WWII.

You would have had even more crashes, mid-air explosions, etc.

Air refueling requires good tech, good maintenance and skilled well trained personnel. Respectfully to the Army Air Corps, IMHO, they were very rushed on training compared to modern pilots. Even if handed functional equipment, I'd be nervous about the concept except for the most skilled and experienced pilots of that era.

[Brad Johnson]

Umm....no.  Max bomb load of the B-17G was 17,600 pounds.  Using hard points between the inboard engines and the fuselage brought it up to 20,400 pounds.  Those high loads did, however, require lower fuel loads as the max rated TOW was around 65,000 lbs.  Even so, there were occasions where B-17s flew missions where their gross weight exceeded 80,000 pounds.  Tough old birds they were.
Typical bomb loads on a mission into France and beyond ran 4,000 to 8,000 pounds, always trading fuel and range for bomb load.
The max airspeed of the B-17G was either 302 mph or 320 mph, I disremember as it's been awhile since I last looked it up.  Typical cruise was on a mission much less, of course.  On SJ we typically babied it at around 150 to save gas and wear and tear on the R1820-87 engines.  It was about $20k to rebuild one back in '88.  I hate to think how much it is now.
In all my poking around in the innards of SJ, I don't recall seeing any signs of hardware related to water or methanol injection.  Not saying it didn't exist, just don't recall seeing remnants.  We could see leftover stuff for a lot of gear that had been in and out of the bird over the years.
I also don't recall reading about that option, but then, it has been a long time since I messed with the airplane.  I've got a copy of the manual around here somewhere...

Eta to correct max bomb load weight.

What I'm seeing supports 17k as a very questionable max (overload) rating to be used only in highly atypical situations.  Everything I'm seeing for G variant supports the wiki entry specs of 8000 lbs for a >400 mile combat range and 4500 for <800.  Max combat range of 1700 nautical.  The G model's 36k empty/ 54k loaded (including crew and fuel) seems to support this.  Yes, it has a 65.5k maximum, but that was a max airworthiness rating, not a max payload calculation number.  According to Bowers' Fortress In The Sky typical combat load for a F variant on a 1400 mile mission was 4900 lbs with a 9600 lb max and 16,800 overload, used only rarely due to a significant deterioration of flight characteristics.

IIRC power adders were mostly used on fighters, bomber use coming more towards the end of the war for the longer B24 and B29 Pacific theatre missions where maxed out fuel loads and short, rough island runways made for unacceptably long takeoff rolls.

I'm comparing normal loadout weights and maximums.  Using max overload for the 17 against the normal max load for the 10 doesn't give an accurate comparison.  I don't doubt that enterprising crew chiefs took the 17 far beyond it's rated maximums during war time. They often knew their birds better than the engineers who designed them, but those were beyond the tested flight safety parameters.  Given the granite-like strength of the A10 airframe I'm sure it could be pushed significantly past it's max rating as well.  Still, that represents atypical situations and usage and that's not what I'm trying to compare.

Brad

[RocketMan]

Interesting that you see the 17klbs rating in Bower's work as an overload rating.  Everything I have lists that as the max bomb load, and the overload as the 20.4klbs number using the wing hardpoints.  I think I have that same info in another Bower's book (or maybe it's Fortress in the Sky), but it's not handy at the moment.  My entire hard copy library is still in moving boxes.
Granted, those numbers I listed are coming from memory, but they were pretty firmly engraved there as they were what we also used when showing and giving tours of SJ years ago.  I have recited them at least an umpteen hundred times to tourists in years past.
Maybe I will get a chance to crack open some moving boxes this weekend and dig up some of my old reference material.