11 ms·

One reason they're retiring the A-10 is wiring. It's inadequate for all the electronics they want to upgrade and to expensive to replace because the design is s

One reason they're retiring the A-10 is wiring. It's inadequate for all the electronics they want to upgrade and to expensive to replace because the design is so tight you'd have to gut the plane. I imagine the option of having a microwaved Hot Pocket on a long mission without blowing the fuses would be nice.

mcv 11y ago
So build a replacement for the A-10. If the idea is good, but the version from the 1970s is woefully out of date, then design something that does exactly that, but better.
- jambox888 11y ago
  I was under the impression that the A-10 is fine for Afghanistan but useless anywhere there is good air defence - just too slow. That said it could be useful for blunting an armoured vanguard.
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    Who are we fighting who has a good air defense? Also, who are we fighting who would have a good air defense the second week of the conflict? (Don't say China. China has replaced Confucianism with Waltonism, as in Sam.)
    - threeseed 11y ago
      Why not China ? They will absolutely defend themselves militarily over the dispute in the South China Sea or Taiwan. They are quite keen to start a skirmish with their neighbours to assert their authority and dominance over the region.
      - cbd1984 11y ago
        > Why not China ? They're heavily invested in us, both in terms of bonds and in terms of selling us stuff. Both of that goes away the second they challenge us militarily, and their economy couldn't take it.
        mcv 11y ago
        I'm not so sure their economy is still as weak as it once was. My impression is that China really has its shit together, more than any other country. Their economy isn't as big as the US yet, but it's catching up and maturing. I think the time will come when China will insist on dominating its own sphere of influence.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      The main problem for the A-10 is widely available, effective MANPADS. I'm not sure what you can do to immunize your attack aircraft from them, but I am pretty sure that the F-35 isn't the answer.
      - graycat 11y ago
        > immunize your attack aircraft from them Stealth?
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Does "stealth" mean anything in close visual range? Can you do close air support from afar? I don't think you can.
        jmccree 11y ago
        Close in CAS means close in proximity to friendly troops. Before smart munitions this required the aircraft to also be in close proximity to hit the enemy force without hitting friendlies. Now an orbiting bomber or drone can deliver a targeted strike while flying high in the sky miles away. I love the old warthog, but in the days of drones, I can't see much of a use anymore.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        I think we'll have the Warthog until after the ground troops are confident with the drones / remotely piloted craft. That opinion is less to do with my own ideas about the potential of drones to do CAS well, and more to do with my assessment of what military decision makers will tolerate in terms of change.
        graycat 11y ago
        I was responding to "MANPADS", etc. Such a device will need detectors of some kind, e.g., heat, radar, and the usual approaches to stealth should help. For close air support, maybe the US wants to use fast, stealth aircraft firing missiles to spots specified with laser designators, GPS, etc. As I recall, at times the USAF claimed that to kill tanks an F-16 with a missile was better than the A-10: Sure, the gun on the A-10 is amazing, but the A-10 flies low and slow and should be vulnerable to, say, MANPADS. The F-16 flies higher and faster, fires a missile, and then is out'a there. Maybe the USAF wants the F-35 to be better, still: Use stealth. Sure, maybe soon the USAF will want its missiles to kill tanks, etc. fired from drones, maybe even stealth drones.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    We don't deploy aircraft in places with good air defense.
    - threeseed 11y ago
      Military purchases aren't just for today's conflicts. Russia is going to continue to assert themselves against NATO's encroachment into the former USSR countries and China wants to be seen to be their region's unquestioned superpower. Both have a lot of political support internally to demonstrate their military strength.
    - afarrell 11y ago
      The main purpose of a military is the ability to threaten violence. The ability to execute violence is a prerequisite for that.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Yes, that is also true for every other effective ground attack platform. AC-130, Drones, Apaches and other helicopters. The A-10 isn't a fighter, it is for ground attack. Not even the most fervent A-10 fanatics believe that the A-10 is a capable air-to-air fighter; it was never intended to be. So, yes it needs fighters to ensure air superiority so that it can operate. That's not a bug.
    - mcv 11y ago
      I once heard they're great for hunting helicopters.
  - Untit1ed 11y ago
    While it's fine for Afghanistan it was designed for a cold-war tank battle. If you don't need to kill tanks or dodge air defences a propeller-powered plane that looks like something out of WW2 is a lot cheaper... and that's what's being developed by a bunch of firms for counter-insurgency.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      There are already several of those types of aircraft to choose from. My favorite is Embraer's Super Tucano, of which the US is buying 100 for the Afghan government.
  - jonathankoren 11y ago
    Replace "Afghanistan" with "the Fulda Gap" and you have exactly described the A-10's original design criteria. In a ground support aircraft, slowness is good, because then it can turn over the battlefield. Anyway, the plane can take a huge amount of punishment and still fly.
benihana 11y ago
>because the design is so tight you'd have to gut the plane. I don't get why that is. The plane was designed in the 70s, when personal computers were the size of closets. Even if it was tight, I can't imagine new tech taking up more space than the old tech did, even if there's more of it.
- nickff 11y ago
  The new electronic circuits are smaller, but they require more power than their predecessors, there are more of them, and the sensors have placement requirements which conflict with the aircraft's configuration. All of this adds up to having to re-wire the aircraft, do a new layout, and move around a large number of parts.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    >The new electronic circuits are smaller, but they require more power than their predecessors That makes no sense at all. It is a nonsensical statement. >and the sensors have placement requirements which conflict with the aircraft's configuration. All of this adds up to having to re-wire the aircraft, do a new layout, and move around a large number of parts. Unless what you're really trying to say is that the stuff designed to fit a different specific aircraft can't be directly bolted on to an A-10, then I simply don't find those remarks credible. And if you are trying to say that, then you aren't being reasonable.
kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
That's a strawman. Many of the older airframes in use have seen multiple systems upgrades to modernize them. If "old wiring" is the reason to mothball the A10 (yet again) then why is the B52 fleet being kept in service for a planned 95 year lifetime on the oldest airframes?
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Where did you read that? I've seen the same criticism repeated in multiple places and I still don't buy it. It appears to me to be another weak justification for why one of the Chair Force's least favorite step-children can't have any toys.
commandar 11y ago
The A-10C upgrade program seems to fly in the face of that. Really, the biggest problem with the A-10 right now is that the airframes are getting old, but that's a problem with our entire aircraft inventory. e.g., the F-15 having been grounded multiple times in the past decades because of airframes literally giving out and breaking up in training flights. The A-10 fleet is supposed to get rewinged to help with this; the USAF signed contracts with Boeing to build the wings before they started actively fighting spending money on anything that isn't the F-35.
- astrodust 11y ago
  The A-10 is the exact sort of airplane they need now, so it's absolutely baffling to see people even talking about phasing these out and replacing the with the flying turkey that is the F-35. As Iraq and Afghanistan proved, you need extremely close range support and sustained fire. The cannon on the A-10 is good enough for the sorts of targets they're dealing with, armor is rare, and it has significantly more mobility than the other best alternative, the AC-130. What use is the F-35 when it can't linger, has extremely limited bombing capability, and can't strafe when necessary? The A-10 is an extremely pragmatic solution to a messy problem.

mcv 11y ago

So build a replacement for the A-10. If the idea is good, but the version from the 1970s is woefully out of date, then design something that does exactly that, but better.

jambox888 11y ago
I was under the impression that the A-10 is fine for Afghanistan but useless anywhere there is good air defence - just too slow. That said it could be useful for blunting an armoured vanguard.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Who are we fighting who has a good air defense? Also, who are we fighting who would have a good air defense the second week of the conflict? (Don't say China. China has replaced Confucianism with Waltonism, as in Sam.)
  - threeseed 11y ago
    Why not China ? They will absolutely defend themselves militarily over the dispute in the South China Sea or Taiwan. They are quite keen to start a skirmish with their neighbours to assert their authority and dominance over the region.
    - cbd1984 11y ago
      > Why not China ? They're heavily invested in us, both in terms of bonds and in terms of selling us stuff. Both of that goes away the second they challenge us militarily, and their economy couldn't take it.
      - mcv 11y ago
        I'm not so sure their economy is still as weak as it once was. My impression is that China really has its shit together, more than any other country. Their economy isn't as big as the US yet, but it's catching up and maturing. I think the time will come when China will insist on dominating its own sphere of influence.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    The main problem for the A-10 is widely available, effective MANPADS. I'm not sure what you can do to immunize your attack aircraft from them, but I am pretty sure that the F-35 isn't the answer.
    - graycat 11y ago
      > immunize your attack aircraft from them Stealth?
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Does "stealth" mean anything in close visual range? Can you do close air support from afar? I don't think you can.
        jmccree 11y ago
        Close in CAS means close in proximity to friendly troops. Before smart munitions this required the aircraft to also be in close proximity to hit the enemy force without hitting friendlies. Now an orbiting bomber or drone can deliver a targeted strike while flying high in the sky miles away. I love the old warthog, but in the days of drones, I can't see much of a use anymore.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        I think we'll have the Warthog until after the ground troops are confident with the drones / remotely piloted craft. That opinion is less to do with my own ideas about the potential of drones to do CAS well, and more to do with my assessment of what military decision makers will tolerate in terms of change.
        graycat 11y ago
        I was responding to "MANPADS", etc. Such a device will need detectors of some kind, e.g., heat, radar, and the usual approaches to stealth should help. For close air support, maybe the US wants to use fast, stealth aircraft firing missiles to spots specified with laser designators, GPS, etc. As I recall, at times the USAF claimed that to kill tanks an F-16 with a missile was better than the A-10: Sure, the gun on the A-10 is amazing, but the A-10 flies low and slow and should be vulnerable to, say, MANPADS. The F-16 flies higher and faster, fires a missile, and then is out'a there. Maybe the USAF wants the F-35 to be better, still: Use stealth. Sure, maybe soon the USAF will want its missiles to kill tanks, etc. fired from drones, maybe even stealth drones.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  We don't deploy aircraft in places with good air defense.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    Military purchases aren't just for today's conflicts. Russia is going to continue to assert themselves against NATO's encroachment into the former USSR countries and China wants to be seen to be their region's unquestioned superpower. Both have a lot of political support internally to demonstrate their military strength.
  - afarrell 11y ago
    The main purpose of a military is the ability to threaten violence. The ability to execute violence is a prerequisite for that.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Yes, that is also true for every other effective ground attack platform. AC-130, Drones, Apaches and other helicopters. The A-10 isn't a fighter, it is for ground attack. Not even the most fervent A-10 fanatics believe that the A-10 is a capable air-to-air fighter; it was never intended to be. So, yes it needs fighters to ensure air superiority so that it can operate. That's not a bug.
  - mcv 11y ago
    I once heard they're great for hunting helicopters.
- Untit1ed 11y ago
  While it's fine for Afghanistan it was designed for a cold-war tank battle. If you don't need to kill tanks or dodge air defences a propeller-powered plane that looks like something out of WW2 is a lot cheaper... and that's what's being developed by a bunch of firms for counter-insurgency.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    There are already several of those types of aircraft to choose from. My favorite is Embraer's Super Tucano, of which the US is buying 100 for the Afghan government.
- jonathankoren 11y ago
  Replace "Afghanistan" with "the Fulda Gap" and you have exactly described the A-10's original design criteria. In a ground support aircraft, slowness is good, because then it can turn over the battlefield. Anyway, the plane can take a huge amount of punishment and still fly.

benihana 11y ago

>because the design is so tight you'd have to gut the plane. I don't get why that is. The plane was designed in the 70s, when personal computers were the size of closets. Even if it was tight, I can't imagine new tech taking up more space than the old tech did, even if there's more of it.

nickff 11y ago
The new electronic circuits are smaller, but they require more power than their predecessors, there are more of them, and the sensors have placement requirements which conflict with the aircraft's configuration. All of this adds up to having to re-wire the aircraft, do a new layout, and move around a large number of parts.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >The new electronic circuits are smaller, but they require more power than their predecessors That makes no sense at all. It is a nonsensical statement. >and the sensors have placement requirements which conflict with the aircraft's configuration. All of this adds up to having to re-wire the aircraft, do a new layout, and move around a large number of parts. Unless what you're really trying to say is that the stuff designed to fit a different specific aircraft can't be directly bolted on to an A-10, then I simply don't find those remarks credible. And if you are trying to say that, then you aren't being reasonable.

kevin_thibedeau 11y ago

That's a strawman. Many of the older airframes in use have seen multiple systems upgrades to modernize them. If "old wiring" is the reason to mothball the A10 (yet again) then why is the B52 fleet being kept in service for a planned 95 year lifetime on the oldest airframes?

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

Where did you read that? I've seen the same criticism repeated in multiple places and I still don't buy it. It appears to me to be another weak justification for why one of the Chair Force's least favorite step-children can't have any toys.

commandar 11y ago

The A-10C upgrade program seems to fly in the face of that. Really, the biggest problem with the A-10 right now is that the airframes are getting old, but that's a problem with our entire aircraft inventory. e.g., the F-15 having been grounded multiple times in the past decades because of airframes literally giving out and breaking up in training flights. The A-10 fleet is supposed to get rewinged to help with this; the USAF signed contracts with Boeing to build the wings before they started actively fighting spending money on anything that isn't the F-35.

astrodust 11y ago
The A-10 is the exact sort of airplane they need now, so it's absolutely baffling to see people even talking about phasing these out and replacing the with the flying turkey that is the F-35. As Iraq and Afghanistan proved, you need extremely close range support and sustained fire. The cannon on the A-10 is good enough for the sorts of targets they're dealing with, armor is rare, and it has significantly more mobility than the other best alternative, the AC-130. What use is the F-35 when it can't linger, has extremely limited bombing capability, and can't strafe when necessary? The A-10 is an extremely pragmatic solution to a messy problem.