Textron Scorpion, Replacement for the A-10?

[GoldenRivet]

http://www.scorpionjet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DSC2111.jpg

While the development costs of the F-35 transformer jet have been estimated to exceed $395,000,000,000 and the program is plagued with delays... Textron has taken its crayons, sat quietly in the corner, and designed - built - flown - tested - demonstrated and marketed the Scorpion.

Notably absent from the scorpion design is "the big gun" - the primary weapon of the A-10 the GAU-8 30mm Avenger Cannon. But according to the article, the scorpion can carry similar strike guns in the form of pods attached to wing pylons when the mission requires the sort of personal touch that only depleted uranium can deliver.

Is the scorpion a suitable replacement for the A-10? maybe... the scorpion, like the Su-25, performs the same job as the A-10 but does so with a different approach.

But it's $20M price tag and estimated $3,000/hr operating costs must surely make the aircraft an attractive option in the budget minded era

What i admire most about the aircraft is the modest, "keep it simple, stupid" approach to its development - certainly as compared to the F-35

After more than four decades in service, the A-10 Warthog is due for a replacement. So says the U.S. Air Combat Command.


What's more, ACC says it's already "thinking about" fielding such a replacement. But what might that replacement be?


Last week, we got a clue. As reported by Reuters, the Air Force has recently begun evaluating Textron's (NYSE: TXT ) Scorpion fighter jet as a potential 21st-century replacement for the 20th-century Warthog.
Quoting Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle, head of ACC, Reuters reports that the Air Force has done "some research" on Textron's new budget-priced Scorpion. And Carlisle thinks the plane just might be what the Air Force needs to perform close-air support in "contested environments" that could prove lethal to the A-10.


But what exactly is Scorpion, and how does it stack up against the A-10 Thunderbolt Warthog?


Introducing Scorpion
Textron describes Scorpion as a modern "surveillance and strike" aircraft boasting:


twin turbofan engines, producing 8,000 lbs. of combined thrust
a 45,000-foot top altitude
a top speed of 520 mph
six hard points for carrying weapons on its wings (6,200 lbs. capacity)
room for 3,000 lbs. more payload in an internal weapons bay
a flyaway cost of less than $20 million -- and an hourly operations cost of about $3,000

Relative to the A-10 Warthog, Textron's Scorpion has about half as much engine power -- but also half the weight. The aircraft's range is roughly equal to the A-10's, but the Scorpion is a better "sprinter," featuring both a faster maximum speed and a slower "stall speed" -- important for flying low-and-slow on ground support missions.


Of course, the biggest difference between Scorpion and the A-10 Warthog is the absence of a "big gun" -- specifically, the 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon that is both the A-10's primary weapon and its defining feature. Designed to kill Soviet tanks in a circa-1980s Cold War confrontation -- and actually used to destroy nearly 900 Soviet-vintage Iraqi tanks in the 1990s Gulf War I -- the A-10's big gun is notably absent from Textron's Scorpion.


But can Scorpion replace the A-10 Warthog without it?


Bill Anderson, president of Textron AirLand, thinks so. In a recent phone conversation, Anderson pointed out that Textron originally developed Scorpion to perform a "Multi Mission, ISR/strike platform" role. It thus was not designed to duplicate the A-10's mission; it prefers using precision weapons to attack ground targets from a safe distance out of range of enemy defenses.


That fact addresses the Air Force's concerns about the A-10 Warthog's survivability. And flying high and fast, Scorpion might be a good candidate to take over the A-10's role in some threat environments.


As Anderson explains it, "two abilities are critical" for any aircraft performing close-air support: "The ability to communicate with ground forces, and the ability to find and fix a target." Anderson argues that "Scorpion is very good in both these roles, and can loiter up to five hours," providing ground support as needed through its suite of high-tech, standoff weapons. What's more, while the aircraft doesn't carry an integrated 30 mm cannon, its modular design permits it to carry one or even two cannon "pods" on its wings, to provide a strafing ability when there's a need to get up close and personal.


article http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/15/could-this-airplane-replace-the-a-10-warthog.aspx

[Wolferz]

But, can it still fly with half a wing shot off?:hmmm:

The A-10 also has that armored tub cockpit to protect the pilot from ground fire. Have they excluded that to save on weight?:hmmm:

Newer isn't always better.:shucks:
And lastly, why would a close air support craft require a 45,000 foot ceiling?
The action is down here, not way the hell up there.

Common sense is rare. Especially in the Pentagon.:88)

[GoldenRivet]

But, can it still fly with half a wing shot off?:hmmm:

yet to be determined

The A-10 also has that armored tub cockpit to protect the pilot from ground fire. Have they excluded that to save on weight?:hmmm:

No armored bathtub that i am aware of

Newer isn't always better.:shucks:

The USAF and its ever growing budget concerns are dictating the terms at this point.

why would a close air support craft require a 45,000 foot ceiling?

yet the fabled A-10 (of which i am a huge supporter and fan) has a published service ceiling of 45,000 ft, i dont know... what I do know is that the Scorpion as being marketed as a multi-role aircraft, one that can fly and fight, but also excels at engaging ground targets and conducting reconnaissance flights


Common sense is rare. Especially in the Pentagon.:88)

nail, hammer, head

bottom line is quite simple really

money

if the air force can find a comparable replacement for an aging fleet that can operate at 1/10th the cost... why wouldn't they pull the trigger.

i think it is funny that the DOD keeps pouring billions on billions on billions of dollars into the F-35 wonder weapon that in reality - cant fly - cannot carry some of the munitions it was meant to carry - and relies on weapons software that wont be operational for another 7 years... yet textron went old school and designed what at least appears to be a capable platform that has already toured most of the western world capturing the interest of at least a hand full of military forces

bottom line is... one day we will miss the Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt - but the day is coming, and we have to do something

[Stealhead]

The problem that the A-10 faces is that it simply can not survive in a modern air defense environment. It doesn't matter that its very tough and it is. What matters is due to its speed and low altitude (that it must get to in order to "go kinetic" most every last would either get destroyed or damaged to such a state as to become a write off)

Another disadvantage the A-10 has that few realize is that it is primarily a day time operating platform it lacks the ability to operate at night effectively. This hurts as the military special forces in particular prefer to operate nocturnaly.

A third weakness of the A-10 is that the surviving airframes a nearing the end of their service lives most where made between 1978 and 1982 so there are 33 years old at the youngest. Now true there's BUFFs that are older but they have not spent their lives pulling the GS that the A-10 dose.

The truth is that several aircraft can in fact perform the modern CAS role as well as the A-10 can and in a superior manner during darkness. An example that you might not expect is the Bone (B-1B and yes I'm aware of the 2013 fratricide incident the A-10 has also been involved in fratricides several in fact).

I have a personal connection with the A-10 having served with "her" in the USAF but she's an old lady now and deserves to go and play bridge with the A-1 Skyraider and P-47 while drinking a nice hot cup of JP8.

The F-35 can croak for all I care best short to midterm solution is to use the the existing airframes that have already replaced the A-10 in areas of the CAS role since the late 80's (F-16 and F-15E Strike Eagle both are fully night operable).

The A-10 got lucky seeing as we got involved COIN warfare for a few years but that environment dose not represent the conditions of a modern equally equipped enemy in nearly any way. Not to mention the fact that even the Taliban and ISIL don't have to worry about the Hog at night.

@Wolf a JADM and many other munitions used in CAS these days can be deployed to great effect without the need to get low.

[Oberon]

The A10 can kinda bodge night service by using the seeker head on the Mavericks, but yeah, it's not really geared for that role.

Scorpion, it's an attractive prospect that's for certain. I think one of the bigger challenges is deciding what role and enemy that the US is gearing itself towards for the 21st century. In fact, to be honest, it's a problem that's facing all NATO militaries, not just the US. We've spent most of the past decade reconfiguring our armed forces from taking on Russia to taking on insurgencies and armed militia, and now we've got a resurgent Russia we're having to quickly reconfigure units back to their original mission. :haha: Sods law really.

The Scorpion might not have the survivability of the A10, but if it's going to be a stand-off attack platform then it doesn't really need it. The problem is, is that the USAF already has a couple of good solid multi-role aircraft in the F-15E and F-16s, not to mention of course, the Reaper and upcoming drones, which are cheaper (by about $4million) and have the advantage of not having a fleshy bit to get killed in action.
So where does the Scorpion fit in? :hmmm: When the A10 is retired, the only thing that is going to be lost is the Gau-8, the use of which requires the aircraft to get danger close to the enemy, which the Scorpion will lack the survivability of the A10 if the enemy decides to shoot back. The Mavericks can be used by a multi-platform selection of units, as can most of the freefall and guided munitions that the A10 carries, the Scorpion can only carry just over 9,000lb worth of munitions or fuel, compared to the A10s 16,000 and the F-15Es 10,400, although in the Scorpions favour it can carry more than a drone, so there's that.
I do struggle to see the part that the Scorpion would play though, if it's not going to have the survivability of the A10 and will be a stand-off aircraft then its role is better filled by an F15E, or if you're looking for cost effectiveness then by a group of drones which also have the advantage of not having a pilot to be captured by the enemy if it gets shot down (which in todays fight against barbarians like Daesh is, as the Jordanian airforce found out, an invaluable advantage).
It's cheap, I'll give it that, but its mission is already covered in the USAF, I think that it will probably do better in the foreign market. :yep:

[Nippelspanner]

Another disadvantage the A-10 has that few realize is that it is primarily a day time operating platform it lacks the ability to operate at night effectively. This hurts as the military special forces in particular prefer to operate nocturnaly.
The A-10A had that problem, the A-10C has a FLIR pod and the pilot has NVG.
It can operate at night just fine actually.

[Pisces]

Looks more like a rehashed F-5/F-20/T-38, aside from the slender wingspan and dual vertical stabilizer.

[Stealhead]

The A-10A had that problem, the A-10C has a FLIR pod and the pilot has NVG.
It can operate at night just fine actually.

I did not say that it lacked nocturnal capabilities but that they are even with the A-10C inferior to other platforms particularly the the F-15E and B-1B simple truth is when it counts they do not call on the A-10C during nocturnal missions because there are always superior assets in theater which can perform far better than the A-10C can. For night operations the Bone is the CAS platform of choice not the A-10C. The Bone can loiter just as long as the A-10 and one Bone car carry the loadout of several Hogs. On many occasions Mk84(2000lb) with JADM kit (or Paveway kit)dropped by a Bone has saved units from being overrun.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2D_zHRakOXY
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7fc8bgf1pGk
the Bone can easily carry a mix of Mk84,82,and small diameter bombs which allow it to provide very devastating attacks down to very danger close attacks.

The fact also is that using the camera seeker head on the AGM-65 is very difficult in fact its why they made the radar guided version of the Mavrick which was originally employed by fast movers like the F-16. Having worked with A-10 drivers I know from their banter just how hard it is to effectively use the camera on the 65 even in daylight and they are on a slower platform. Its why the C can fire the radar guided 65.

[AngusJS]

Doesn't look cool enough. We stick with the A-10.

[Mr Quatro]

No wonder the scorpion flys slower with those wings.

Like Wolferz said can it fly with damage and why 45,000 ft ceiling?

I don't like it ... I hope the USAF likes a better design with a canon that punch a tank or ground troops.

Shoot I'd pay 40 million dollars for a real A-10 replacement :yep:

[Red October1984]

Replace the A-10?

http://media.giphy.com/media/POql6zsXZbmcE/giphy.gif

[Oberon]

No wonder the scorpion flys slower with those wings.

Like Wolferz said can it fly with damage and why 45,000 ft ceiling?

I don't like it ... I hope the USAF likes a better design with a canon that punch a tank or ground troops.

Shoot I'd pay 40 million dollars for a real A-10 replacement :yep:

With what budget? :O:

The GAU-8 is a good gun, but there's a number of problems with it.

A) The recoil, which is slight stronger than the A10s engines. :haha:
B) The gases, which whilst already solved in the A10 would be something that any other aircraft using the GAU-8 would have to consider
C) The range, which is shorter than most Surface to Air Missiles, meaning that it's only really useful against something that doesn't have any air defence.
D) The aspect ratio of the target attack run. The GAU-8 isn't as a surefire tank killer as its made out to be. I refer people to the A10 pilots colouring book (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_053c.html) which indicates the angle at which a pilot must attack a tank in order to increase the probability of penetration. Against softer targets its fine but is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, not very cost effective to a nation with a $18t and climbing debt problem. It is debatable (http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f22-military-technology/36152-how-badly-would-gau-8-damage-modern-mbt.html), questionable even, how effective the GAU-8 is against modern MBTs.

As much as I do love the A10, and I do, they were the first combat aircraft I saw when I moved to Suffolk back when they flew out of Bentwaters, as much as I love them, their role is overlapped by other aircraft, and with cheaper and more cost effective drones coming in, once you can get accurate gun platforms on them, then well most COIN operations can be turned over to them. Tank plinking can be left to AH-64s, F-16s and F-15Es with Hellfires, Mavericks and GBUs.

I think the thing that the US should consider focusing on is making more cost effective munitions rather than munition platforms. The Iraq and Afghan wars have shown how much ammunition a modern conflict will chew through and that's against a relatively unsophisticated enemy. Smart bombs are great, but dozens of times more expensive to create and use, which is a problem when you're eating through them like Rice Crispies. :/\\!! However it's plain to see (pardon the pun) that smart bombs are an invaluable asset in reducing collateral damage, despite their cost. So it's an awkward balancing act between having a munition that is smart enough to kill the people you want it to kill and them only, but cheap enough that you're not going to go bankrupt when you fire it. :dead:

[Stealhead]

Indeed in fact the JADM was created to allow a lower cost alternative to the Paveway and also to counter its then weaknesses which have largely been resolved through advancements. Still the JADM is much cheaper than Paveway and still pretty darn accurate.

As was said the GAU-8 is a bit over rated most A-10 kills are achieved via other means. Pound for pound the best airborne tank killer is the Apache and it has better surviabilty as it can fly nap of the earth expose itself very breifly and then hide. The A-10 must expose itself to air defenses for an extended period during an attack. I think had the Cold War gone hot A-10 units that lacked good SEAD and fighter coverage would have been decimated.

@Oberon I'd make the counter point that smart muntions though more expensive actually reduce costs and overall risk. For example the very first combat use against the Dragons Jaw Bridge in N. Vietnam in one strike they leveled two spans. Something that dozens of strikes using hundreds of dumb bombs was unable to achieve. Also your having to risk less aircraft on a mission therefore I argue that overall smart munitions actually save money.

Or when I asked my father why in Vietnam did they expend so much ammo in combat he said why not its only a waste when you aren't having any effect.

[Aktungbby]

So it's an awkward balancing act between having a munition that is smart enough to kill the people you want it to kill and them only, but cheap enough that you're not going to go bankrupt when you fire it. :dead: BUT...BUT...It's all about the boom economy!:shucks: Not saving money; just ask the congressman from the defense industry ba$ed district that makes Abram tanks the army doesn't need: "The combat vehicle industrial base is a unique asset that consists of hundreds of public and private facilities across the United States," the letter said. The outlook for selling Abrams tanks to other nations appears "stronger than prior years," the letter said. But those sales would be "inadequate to sustain the industrial base and in some cases uncertain. In light of this, modest and continued Abrams production for the Army is necessary to protect the industrial base.":timeout:
Lima, Ohio, is a long way from this dusty tank parking lot. The tiny town in the northwestern part of the Buckeye State is where defense manufacturing heavyweight General Dynamics makes these 60-plus-ton behemoths.
The tanks create 16,000 jobs and involve 882 suppliers, says Kendell Pease, the company's vice-president of government relations and communications. That job figure includes ancillary positions like gas station workers who fill up employees' cars coming and going to the plant." http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/comment-page-4/ (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/comment-page-4/) Yet another case involves converting our Afghan allies soldiers to M-14 rifles when every kid over ten years old Akbar Allah's with the weapon of choice' the AK-47 his grandpa trained him on....ITS THE ECONOMY BBY not economics :shucks: In short, there is no awkward balancing of the American Indusrial-Military complex....as long as you ignore Ike's famous parting warning: "Beware.....:O: Greed is alive and GOOD!

[Nippelspanner]

I did not say that it lacked nocturnal capabilities but that they are even with the A-10C inferior to other platforms particularly the the F-15E and B-1B
True, I misunderstood, you really just said they are insufficient.

Another disadvantage the A-10 has that few realize is that it is primarily a day time operating platform it lacks the ability to operate at night effectively.
Which both isn't true.
The A-10C's mission is to provide day and night CAS, nothing states it is restricted or favored for day sorties only.

You mentioned the Maverick seeker again and I wonder when you spoke to A-10 pilots that they mentioned them.
The "poor man's FLIR" is a tactic from the second gulf war and surely from the Kosovo conflict, maybe even early in the OEF and OIF campaigns but since 2005, I doubt any hog pilot ever had to rely on a Mav seeker again to see something, really.
Why would they use Mav seekers if they have perfectly fine FLIR targeting pods, just like the F-15 or the B-1B?
Where is the difference?
Why do you claim that the hog can't "effectively" operate at night?
It sure can, I mean where is the difference of dropping a GBU-12 onto something from a Hog or anything else?

simple truth is when it counts they do not call on the A-10C during nocturnal missions because there are always superior assets in theater which can perform far better than the A-10C can. For night operations the Bone is the CAS platform of choice not the A-10C. The Bone can loiter just as long as the A-10 and one Bone car carry the loadout of several Hogs. On many occasions Mk84(2000lb) with JADM kit (or Paveway kit)dropped by a Bone has saved units from being overrun.
Well that can be said for basically every US aircraft with CAS abilities (saving units from being overrun...).

Regarding the Lancer being preferred for night sorties (assuming you're right). Why is that so?
Because it has more ordnance?
Well then why doesn't it fly day and night?

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this has nothing at all to do with capabilities, since the A-10C does have these capabilities, but with bureaucracy and how things are managed in the forces.
For example. Why did DEVGRU raid Osama's little fortress?
"Because they are the best?"
No, because of internal JSOC "politics", that's it.
So I wouldn't blame the A-10 for not flying as much at night, but the people who make the calls. Again, the A-10C is perfectly operational at night without any restrictions.

The fact also is that using the camera seeker head on the AGM-65 is very difficult in fact its why they made the radar guided version of the Mavrick which was originally employed by fast movers like the F-16. Having worked with A-10 drivers I know from their banter just how hard it is to effectively use the camera on the 65 even in daylight and they are on a slower platform. Its why the C can fire the radar guided 65.
The radar guided Maverick?

How exactly did you work with Hog pilots?
Cause it starts to get funny...

[em2nought]

The Tea Party should get the A-10s as a check and balance against the IRS. :D

[GoldenRivet]

The Tea Party should get the A-10s as a check and balance against the IRS. :D

Operating a fleet of them would still probably be cheaper than the taxes most TEA party members pay.

lol dont get me started... i could have paid cash for a Cessna with my tax liability for 2014 and spent a considerable amount of my winter zooming here and there for hundred dollar hamburgers :wah:

but your statement reflects the core point of the USAF Decision. Money.

I love the A-10, i think it is great.

I also love my truck... she's awesome. But if my truck were costing me $250 every time i made an attack run on the grocery store i can guarantee you she would have a firm retirement date and i would be considering my options.

this is the problem the USAF is having, it has to maintain the capability to make a certain number of explosions happen to bad guys for a specific dollar figure.

1. as airframes reach their service life it would be extraordinarily expensive just to build a from scratch A-10 with modern tech and what modern tech exists would only reduce per hour costs by a marginal percentage point. In fact, retooling the A-10 with modern tech might actually increase its operating costs as we start outfitting it with computers and smart missiles that cost a bunch of money to make

2. the per hour operating cost of the 40 year old airplane is several times that of it's new era counterparts

I understand why the A-10 is so popular... its a flying tank. It is meant to buckle down, put on its angry face and drive slowly through just about every 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, bowling ball, rock, sharp stick and curse word the enemy can throw into its flight path gliding right up to the enemy and Brrrting them in the face

Something like the Scorpion or a similar aircraft is more of a sniper and considers the fact that there's more than one way to skin a T-72, and with modern tech... if i can splash down munitions onto an enemy vehicle from 20 miles away for 1/6th the cost - why wouldnt I?

what about loitering? Compared to an aircraft like the A-10, planes similar to the scorpion loiter like skater punks at the seven-eleven.

Like the BUFF, i would love to see the A-10 Brrrt its way into another 40 years of service but it looks unlikely to happen. I would love to see the airforce switch to single-ply toilet tissue, reduce breakfast in bed staff, install higher priced vending machines in the officer's clubs, raise their golf course user fees, and sell Air Force Cookies in the Walmart parking lot to adjust their budget so they can keep this horse in the stable. But im guessing the stars and bars at the DOD who know a lot more about this stuff than I do have already made their decisions based on more information than i have through a news article and a couple of google searches.

on a long enough time line - every weapons system in the arsenal will be replaced.

Is it a shame that there are F-14Ds sitting in museum hangars with their wing spars cut in half?

yes

could we have made improvements to the tomcat to make it more awesome?

probably

But with the F/A-18 doing such a bang up job of filling the fleet air defense role AND strike role... why dip into the fuel and fireworks money to do it?

We had a old tractor on the ranch that was probably 20 years old when i was a kid. It did what it was supposed to do, it cut grass. it planed fields, it moved mud and towed stuff and i proudly learned the finer points of operating a steerable machine upon her seat... much as we loved it, as classic as it looked... given the parts and up keep on her it eventually just made better sense to put a new Kubota L Series in the shed.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

We had a old tractor on the ranch that was probably 20 years old when i was a kid. It did what it was supposed to do, it cut grass. it planed fields, it moved mud and towed stuff and i proudly learned the finer points of operating a steerable machine upon her seat... much as we loved it, as classic as it looked... given the parts and up keep on her it eventually just made better sense to put a new Kubota L Series in the shed.Off-topic (a bit): My parents' tractor just celebrated its 50th year of service. Its Valmet 565 from 1965 but modified with cab from later tractor model (originally didn't have one) along with several smaller changes such as replacement headlights (because originals broke few years ago and spare parts are out of production).

On-topic: I confess being Warthog fan. Its nice airplane with quite nice cannon and provides nice punch. I however share concerns with others on its survivability against modern air defences.

I don't know is there real need for Scorpion unless it can be used as lower cost companion for F-35 Joint (or Junk, which ever you prefer) Strike Fighter. I'm afraid F-35 may not be affordable enough to be obtained in suffient numbers. Could Scorpion serve as COIN/low end supplement?

[GoldenRivet]

I think primarily Textron has it in mind that the international market is going to be the area where the jet sells best. this is evident in their pitching it to the USAF but mostly touring internationally.

given the direction drone warfare has taken in the last decade its hard to say that sending a man on a CAS run to pound the ground into submission from above is really as much a necessity as it may have been in the past.

a predator drone can spot infantry on the ground and execute an attack while being remotely piloted from the other side of the planet.

Still, if i were infantry shooting it out with advancing enemy troops, it would make me feel a bit better knowing that any second now a flesh and blood flyboy is going to swoop in and lay waste to my foe

Im not sure what the loiter time on a UAV is upon reaching target area... but im betting it isnt 4 or 5 hours

[Stealhead]

Actually Holly loiter times Batman! I'll just lead you read the stats. Third paragraph us of the most interest. Based on that I'd say with only internal and weapons it'd still have a very solid 6-7 hour over combat area loiter.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/mq-9.htm

The A-10 could have its live extended the real reason for the brasses desire to retire it is because that's the only way with current budgets to afford the F-35. Still that fact not withstanding it is an old airframe and is it really worth rebuilding or better to keep the least worn examples and retire the others. Currently there are 235 on active service between active guard and reserve units.

[GoldenRivet]

I'll tell you what is a shame...

no more Douglas Skyraiders motivating the enemy to advance in another direction, the aircraft is obviously obsolete... but if i were an aviator in the Vietnam Era, Close Air Support in the skyraider would have been my choice of assignments

[Nippelspanner]

<snip>
Are you going to reply to what I wrote above and answer my questions, or can I unsubscribe from this thread?

[Rhodes]

Just a bit off topic, I kind of think what a odd looking air plane, almost a tail/engines of one aircraift, wings of another and a nose of a F15. Since I do not know air design/dynamics, can one explain why this shape?

[Stealhead]

Are you going to reply to what I wrote above and answer my questions, or can I unsubscribe from this thread?

You can unsubscribe I recon as I don't agree with anything that your saying and you don't agree with anything I say so what's the point? :salute:

I will tell you that I dislike it when people question my experiences in particular the ones that required me to make personal sacrifices be away from my loved ones for months and be around people that where trying to kill me on a daily basis so let's be careful from this point foward what we say otherwise I'll make use of the ignore list.

[Nippelspanner]

You can unsubscribe I recon as I don't agree with anything that your saying and you don't agree with anything I say so what's the point? :salute:
Most things we discussed have nothing to do with agreements, but with facts.
You claimed some things that are simply not true, for a fact.
You don't have to believe me, but some research for your own sake might be a good idea.
Also, as I said earlier, I had questions that you simply ignored...

I will tell you that I dislike it when people question my experiences in particular the ones that required me to make personal sacrifices be away from my loved ones for months and be around people that where trying to kill me on a daily basis so let's be careful from this point foward what we say.
Oh please, spare me the drama, will ya? :haha:
First of all, these sacrifices you mention have been of your own choice, no one forced you, so don't expect some sort of special treatment, hoping to find a way out after someone calls you out on some stuff you claim, this is really low, I gotta say.

Second, I do indeed question your experience, since you talked about "radar guided Mavericks" (which don't exist).
Also, using a Mavericks optics as the poor man's FLIR is a thing of the past, which again makes me question your experience/and or how relevant your experience might be today (it sounds way outdated).

If you make false claims and even make up fantasy Mavericks, at least be experienced enough to stand up for it once questioned and don't hide in silence - which is something I dislike - even on the internet.

That is all I have to say.

[Stealhead]

Congrats on catching my honest mistake on my early moring error on th. AGM65 I aware theres no radar guided version that was an honest brain fart.

Congrats on displaying your true self as well.

Congrats on the ignore list add now we can enjoy Subsim and not get in each others way.

[Nippelspanner]

Ah yes, more excuses and on top a nice load of butt-hurt.
You could have simply answered my post above and explained yourself, instead you tried the "I am a veteran who made sacrifices, I must not answer for anything I write" way out.
I am not the bad guy here because I don't fall for it, don't even try blaming me here.
And "my true self"? Are you kidding me? I've always been straight forward when I smell BS and I sure won't apologize for that.

But sure, go ahead and put me on that special list because your pride is untouchable.
We all make mistakes or sometimes lean to much out of the window with some claims because we thought we know better, it happens, but all it needs to fix it is a "well I was wrong I guess" and no one ever talks about it again.
But hey, your call, put me on that list if you need to.

[Oberon]

Wow chaps, ok, time out. :timeout:

First off, Stealhead isn't a walt, ok? He's done time on the line with the BUFFs, he knows his stuff. I trust him. I don't know when he came off the line, or whether he's still on it, but if I had to guess I'd say that he might not have seen the new Mavs come in or the TGP.
My gaff on the Mav sight was a recollection from a book from the First Gulf War, but you're quite correct in that with the new(ish) TGP the Hog is fully capable of night-ops, although let's not forget that it was not designed that way initially. This has only been a post-Cold war development, so in a way you're both right. In fact, I might be incorrect here but I think it was part of the upgrade program from A to C which brought in the TGP.
I think we've both had a few crossed wires here which have lead to some jumping to conclusions and failures thereafter.

The thing is, even if you upgrade the Hog to new weapons systems and targeting systems, you're still going to face airframe issues in the long run. This isn't like the B52 which rarely pulls high G maneuvers, the A10 is designed for terrain following attack runs, as well as high altitude stand-off bombing, so the airframe is going to take a fair bit more punishment and wear and tear. The F15 fleet is facing the same problem, which the exception of the more modern E variants. The Bones will be next after that, and the BUFFs will sadly likely follow after. We're in the middle of switching between generations here, so there's going to be a fair bit of switching around in aircraft and technology. There's a fairly large number of aircraft in the USAF and USN inventory which were designed and produced in the 1970s, and there's only so much you can upgrade in the basic airframe before you have an inferior craft.

The A10 is approaching that tipping point, because its opponents have gotten better and smarter. Against the likes of Daesh it's fine, a little overkill in fact since you're using the GAU-8 against pick-up trucks, although the cost effective ratio is something to be questioned, but more on that later. Against the likes of the PRC or Russia though, the A10 is going to face problems and that big gun at the front is not going to help against modern MBTs. The best use these days for the GAU-8 is in the CIWS.

Besides, this may be the last generation which is composed of more manned aircraft than unmanned. I'm not sure how to feel about that. :hmmm:

Anyway, in short, the A10 is a fantastic piece of kit, I don't think anyone here is going to argue that in its time for doing what it was doing, it was damn good at it. But there's a reason that the RAF is not still using EE Lightnings or Gloster Meteors, and it's not just because we probably can't afford them, but it's because their time came and went, and so it is with the A10. As much as we all love the Hog, it's high time she went out to pasture.


Besides, we all know that at least a hundred will wind up at Davis-Monthan. The USAF doesn't throw anything away. :03:

EDIT: A quick Google map search shows that there IS a couple of dozen Hogs at Monthan already ;)

[nikimcbee]

I thought we were going to do everything with drones now?

[Stealhead]

I left A-10s in 1999 as a permanent member of an A-10 support squadron I did work with them later on deployments the C came into service about the time that I left the Air Force.And for the record I was an aerospace ground equipment journeyman. What we did was maintain all of the ground power equipment that aircraft use while on the ground from generators to bomb lifts that's what we did. However in my job you routinely worked directly with pilots and other of the various types of support troops. I've been personally thanked by many pilots including Hog pilots for getting a pesky unit going that was needed to prepare the aircraft for a sortie. So it is what it is I suppose. I never once claimed to be the "A-10 God of mighty knowledge" merely that I did serve in direct support of them. If I where some layer why not claim to have been a munitions tech or hell a pilot?

[NeonSamurai]

I'm a Sniper, Fighter Pilot Ace, Submarine Captain, Astronaut, and Super Spy. I don't often drink beer, but when I do, I make sure its not Dos Equis :D (seriously its terrible beer).

Anyways as to the topic. Honestly I'm not all that impressed with this proposed aircraft, for similar reasons as to what has already been stated. The biggest problem as I see it, is that the ordinance payload is very low. An F-16c Block 50 can carry almost twice the ordinance at about 17,000 lbs. Its also an extremely flexible combat platform, able to perform just about any air based combat mission you can think of. Plus this aircraft is still in production (and in a similar price bracket). The Scorpion really sounds more like an export aircraft. Plus who knows if the aircraft will actually be anywhere near its claimed 3000$ per hour operating costs (which historically have tend to be grossly underestimated)

As for the Hog. I agree with Oberon. Much as I like the plane, I think its time is nearly done. Its a tough plane when it comes to AAA and Manpads, but it's much more vulnerable to SAMs and AAMs. As was mentioned the GAU-8 also has some pretty strong limitations, and I'm not sure it would be worth mounting on future aircraft. I think you would be better off with a 20 or 25mm cannon for use on softer targets, and stick to missiles and smart bombs (like the CBU-97/105) for dealing with tanks.

[GoldenRivet]

One of the best things about retiring a military aircraft is surviving flyable examples. Like the B-17, B-29, the Skyraiders and mustangs etc.

One thing that really bothered me about the F-14 retirement is the fate of our existing models. I spoke with a former F-14 driver some years back... he said that every surviving example had all of the avionics and instruments removed, engines removed, hydraulic and electric systems gutted and once the various salvageable pieces had been removed, they used a torch to cut the main wing spar in half so that essentially when you visit a museum piece F-14 its just a skeleton with its skin still on and nothing underneath.

this was done to prevent parts falling into the hands of Iran who still are in possession of at least 28 flyable F-14s by recent estimates.

It would be shameful to see the A-10 suffer a similar fate. I would prefer to see at least a few of them maintained in flying condition by either the Commemorative Air Force or the Collings Foundation or similar organizations