6 ms·

Given the neglect the military is inflicting on the A-10 warthog, I fully expect the next war to involve the desperate recruitment of the only community of mach

Given the neglect the military is inflicting on the A-10 warthog, I fully expect the next war to involve the desperate recruitment of the only community of machinists nimble enough to pick up the A-10's blueprints and start rebuilding them. Which happens to be the Suame Magazine workshop district in Ghana. Ghana may wind up deciding the outcome of the next major war.

sandworm101 10y ago
For all the a10s greatness, building new ones would be a waste. Improvements can be made. New material and design mean the airframe is now less than ideal. Improvements in ffars (the ones made in canada now fly straiter then bullets and nearly as fast) make even the iconic gun, around which the airframe is wrapped, less than ideal. Google the texco scorpion for what a modern a10 might look like.
- jhalstead 10y ago
  s/texco/textron/, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Ya, that's the one I meant. It looks very different but operationally is very similar to the a-10. Two turbofans rather than jets, relatively strait winged, significant loiter time, cheap to run, and plenty of extra capacities. Dump the second seat, add some steel protection here and there, and you've got a new warthog. A low-wing / high-engine version would be closer to the a-10, but that is almost style over function imho.
    - stouset 10y ago
      Low-wing / high-engine makes it somewhat harder for IR MANPADS to correctly seek on a A-10, especially on approach. The horizontal stabilizers help shield the IR signature as well. It also protects the engines from direct hits from AA guns. And last, it lets maintenance crews refuel and rearm an A-10 on the ground without waiting for the engines to spool down (and spool back up afterward), which can take some time. Faster rearm and refuel means faster mission turn-around. Low-mounted wings also give the A-10 a very low stall speed, improving its ability to loiter over a battlefield.
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        But high wings give better clearance on approach/takeoff, allowing for greater crosswind and rough runway ability. Depending on where the hatches are, a high wing can mean not having to climb over the wing to reach things. The higher wing allows for more sweep without the tips hitting the ground on landing (high aoa) and a little sweep means better ground sightlines, over the shoulder, for the pilot. It's all about tradeoffs.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      A-10 has turbofan engines.
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        Thats what i meant. I was listing similarities. Turbofans are rare on small combat aircraft. See the soviet/russian Frogfoot, the supersonic take on the a10, that doesnt have fans.
    - aidenn0 10y ago
      Aren't pretty much all modern military aircraft turbofans? [edit] From wikipedia: F/A 18-D 2 × General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofans F-15 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 or −220 afterburning turbofans F-22 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in pitch-axis F-35A 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        Technically yes but the ratio between the air going through the jet (the hot part) and the fan (the cold part) draws some lines. The A10, like modern airline engines, is more fan than jet. This makes them efficient but limits top performance. It boils down to the shape of the engine. Wider engines with bigger fans/intakes become a liability above mach1. But a wider fan means better low-speed power, more surface area to "grip" on the slower air, allowing for better acceleration and shorter take-off. The f22 might technically have a fan, but it is extremely small in comparison to the jet that powers it. The strange thing is that at extreme speeds the SR71 engines were high-bypass, with most air bypassing the blades altogether to be burnt in the afterburner as a ramjet.
        samstave 10y ago
        I am constantly amazed with the engineering success of the SR-71, and the SR-71 and A-10 are my favorite planes ever. But jesus, the fact that lockheed made the SR in the 60 just freaking astounds me. I can only imagine what they have been making these days for the breakaway civilization!
      - yellowapple 10y ago
        There was an article on HN a couple months ago about how the DoD is considering replacing the A-10 with a turboprop-based plane.
alex4nder 10y ago
> [...] the only community of machinists nimble enough [...] Which happens to be the Suame Magazine workshop district in Ghana. Could you please expand on this statement? Why do you think this that only this community could rebuild them?
- ocschwar 10y ago
  The workshops there are famous for building entire diesel trucks from scrap. That takes really nimble hands at the lathe and milling machine.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    I don't think that's particularly special. Every machinist / fitter and turner I've worked with in the metal fabrication industry could do that if they felt like it. The small machine shop across the road from where I work now has the tools necessary to build a low-tech diesel or gasoline engine from solid-stock and hollow-bar, or if necessary whatever was laying around. Truck bodies are trivial to knock together from scrap because they can have very simple suspension, and limited scope for handling characteristics.
WalterBright 10y ago
During the Vietnam War the Air Force was forced to bring back into service a lot of retired piston engine aircraft, and rehire retired piston engine mechanics to keep them running well.
- samstave 10y ago
  Vietnam sucked - but it was the last 'conventional' war. Everything since has been CIA nefariousness and technologically weird.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    The B-52s got revived again for the Iraq war :-) Turns out the B-52 is hopelessly obsolete for its original design purpose, but as a cheap truck for delivering huge quantities of bombs on target it has found a lot of utility.
stevenwoo 10y ago
The Air Force controls almost all fixed wing aircraft, and thus the A-10's fate. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-scandal-of-the-anti-a-10-campaign-chickenhawk-chronicles-resume/386075/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-sca... The other funny side note is that when the Army/Air Force simulated it, attack helicopters kill a lot more fighter jets than vice versa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH
Stranger43 10y ago
Or more likely we will return to prop-planes like the A-29B* or for faster hit and run strikes a modified jet trainer which is what most 3rd rate air forces actually fly for domestic anti insurgency operations today. The A-29B is in US inventory and being actively procured mostly for the purpose of assisting 3rd world allies like Afghanistan, and the British version of the navy's T-45* jet trainer have seen combat in the far east. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk

sandworm101 10y ago

For all the a10s greatness, building new ones would be a waste. Improvements can be made. New material and design mean the airframe is now less than ideal. Improvements in ffars (the ones made in canada now fly straiter then bullets and nearly as fast) make even the iconic gun, around which the airframe is wrapped, less than ideal. Google the texco scorpion for what a modern a10 might look like.

jhalstead 10y ago
s/texco/textron/, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Ya, that's the one I meant. It looks very different but operationally is very similar to the a-10. Two turbofans rather than jets, relatively strait winged, significant loiter time, cheap to run, and plenty of extra capacities. Dump the second seat, add some steel protection here and there, and you've got a new warthog. A low-wing / high-engine version would be closer to the a-10, but that is almost style over function imho.
  - stouset 10y ago
    Low-wing / high-engine makes it somewhat harder for IR MANPADS to correctly seek on a A-10, especially on approach. The horizontal stabilizers help shield the IR signature as well. It also protects the engines from direct hits from AA guns. And last, it lets maintenance crews refuel and rearm an A-10 on the ground without waiting for the engines to spool down (and spool back up afterward), which can take some time. Faster rearm and refuel means faster mission turn-around. Low-mounted wings also give the A-10 a very low stall speed, improving its ability to loiter over a battlefield.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      But high wings give better clearance on approach/takeoff, allowing for greater crosswind and rough runway ability. Depending on where the hatches are, a high wing can mean not having to climb over the wing to reach things. The higher wing allows for more sweep without the tips hitting the ground on landing (high aoa) and a little sweep means better ground sightlines, over the shoulder, for the pilot. It's all about tradeoffs.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    A-10 has turbofan engines.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      Thats what i meant. I was listing similarities. Turbofans are rare on small combat aircraft. See the soviet/russian Frogfoot, the supersonic take on the a10, that doesnt have fans.
  - aidenn0 10y ago
    Aren't pretty much all modern military aircraft turbofans? [edit] From wikipedia: F/A 18-D 2 × General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofans F-15 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 or −220 afterburning turbofans F-22 2 × Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans with thrust vectoring in pitch-axis F-35A 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      Technically yes but the ratio between the air going through the jet (the hot part) and the fan (the cold part) draws some lines. The A10, like modern airline engines, is more fan than jet. This makes them efficient but limits top performance. It boils down to the shape of the engine. Wider engines with bigger fans/intakes become a liability above mach1. But a wider fan means better low-speed power, more surface area to "grip" on the slower air, allowing for better acceleration and shorter take-off. The f22 might technically have a fan, but it is extremely small in comparison to the jet that powers it. The strange thing is that at extreme speeds the SR71 engines were high-bypass, with most air bypassing the blades altogether to be burnt in the afterburner as a ramjet.
      - samstave 10y ago
        I am constantly amazed with the engineering success of the SR-71, and the SR-71 and A-10 are my favorite planes ever. But jesus, the fact that lockheed made the SR in the 60 just freaking astounds me. I can only imagine what they have been making these days for the breakaway civilization!
    - yellowapple 10y ago
      There was an article on HN a couple months ago about how the DoD is considering replacing the A-10 with a turboprop-based plane.

alex4nder 10y ago

> [...] the only community of machinists nimble enough [...] Which happens to be the Suame Magazine workshop district in Ghana. Could you please expand on this statement? Why do you think this that only this community could rebuild them?

ocschwar 10y ago
The workshops there are famous for building entire diesel trucks from scrap. That takes really nimble hands at the lathe and milling machine.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  I don't think that's particularly special. Every machinist / fitter and turner I've worked with in the metal fabrication industry could do that if they felt like it. The small machine shop across the road from where I work now has the tools necessary to build a low-tech diesel or gasoline engine from solid-stock and hollow-bar, or if necessary whatever was laying around. Truck bodies are trivial to knock together from scrap because they can have very simple suspension, and limited scope for handling characteristics.

WalterBright 10y ago

During the Vietnam War the Air Force was forced to bring back into service a lot of retired piston engine aircraft, and rehire retired piston engine mechanics to keep them running well.

samstave 10y ago
Vietnam sucked - but it was the last 'conventional' war. Everything since has been CIA nefariousness and technologically weird.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  The B-52s got revived again for the Iraq war :-) Turns out the B-52 is hopelessly obsolete for its original design purpose, but as a cheap truck for delivering huge quantities of bombs on target it has found a lot of utility.

stevenwoo 10y ago

The Air Force controls almost all fixed wing aircraft, and thus the A-10's fate. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-scandal-of-the-anti-a-10-campaign-chickenhawk-chronicles-resume/386075/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-sca... The other funny side note is that when the Army/Air Force simulated it, attack helicopters kill a lot more fighter jets than vice versa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH

Stranger43 10y ago

Or more likely we will return to prop-planes like the A-29B* or for faster hit and run strikes a modified jet trainer which is what most 3rd rate air forces actually fly for domestic anti insurgency operations today. The A-29B is in US inventory and being actively procured mostly for the purpose of assisting 3rd world allies like Afghanistan, and the British version of the navy's T-45* jet trainer have seen combat in the far east. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk