A-10: Like a zombie, back from the dead!!!

[Denis]

I suspect we will see warfare move to

A) "Rods from God", as the replacement for ICBMs.

I suspect, cheaper. Harder to stop, faster to launch, guide, etc.

I'm sure Dr Pournelle and Co adressed the issue long ago, but I do wonder how vulnerable the Thor devices are to attack, once placed in orbit. Granted, a tungsten rod should be pretty durable, but it's got to have some communications and control gear too.

[JustinR]

You don't necessarily have to place them in orbit.

(Thread jack in progress!)

The USAF, with a SABRE engine ship, could deliver said rods pretty much anywhere in the world within 90 minutes.

Once we get off our collective asses and invest our space flight money in something useful anyway.

FWIW, turboprops are great for fuel efficiency. But if I had to do CAS, I'd much rather have a high bypass turbofan where the fan can be encased in armor, better protected from FOD, and have a lot more thrust at the expense of fuel efficiency. If you build an enlarged A-10 with modern aerodynamic efficiencies and a geared turbofan, dollars to donuts you're probably going to get equal or greater loiter time to the current airframe.

[Aesop]

Underpowering in the TF-30 is their current gripe.
I'd love to hear of a better engine.

I suspect, however, that it's a caterpillar effect: putting a bigger, stronger, faster engine makes the plane bigger, and cuts fuel economy and loiter time, which necessitates bigger fuel capacity, which requires more armor...and pretty soon, you have a B-52 or an AC-130. Or an F-35.
At some point, someone recognizes TANSTAAFL, and the guys who drive them learn to live with certain compromises, as long as it performs the primary mission adequately.

If someone makes/can make one and put a turbofan on with more power for the same size and weight, they're onto something.
If they're serious about it, and some money is involved, this would be where GE, P&W, RR, et al should be trotting out their designs for a serious discussion. They've only had 40-50 years to look at the problem.




Meanwhile, the former replacement for the A-10 continues to perform as predicted:

Tests of how Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 will perform in combat won't begin until at least August 2018, a year later than planned, and more than 500 of the fighter jets may be built before the assessment is complete, according to the Pentagon's test office.
“These aircraft will require a still-to-be-determined list of modifications” to be fully capable, Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's top weapons tester, said in his annual report on major programs. “However, these modifications may be unaffordable for the services as they consider the cost of upgrading these early lots of aircraft while the program continues to increase production rates in a fiscally constrained environment.”
link

I.e. it doesn't work, it won't be ready for another year, at which point over 1/5th of the planned total US buy - 20 squadrons or so - will need to be fixed/upgraded, at Unknown Monstrous Expense, or be mothballed forever as unsat. Either way at a cost of billion$ DoD doesn't and won't have.

We have long since reached the point where cutting losses, cancelling the plane, and starting from scratch would yield no greater penalties than will accrue by sticking with this gold-plated turd.

[Greg]

I suspect we will see warfare move to

A) "Rods from God", as the replacement for ICBMs.

I suspect, cheaper. Harder to stop, faster to launch, guide, etc.

I'm sure Dr Pournelle and Co adressed the issue long ago, but I do wonder how vulnerable the Thor devices are to attack, once placed in orbit. Granted, a tungsten rod should be pretty durable, but it's got to have some communications and control gear too.

I remember reading about this, of 30 or so years ago. The pods themselves were designed to be very stealthy. Subversion of the control system, that might be more of an issue.

The real problem with the 'rods from god' thing is cost to orbit.

[Aesop]

Noting the threadjack, orbital strikes may replace deep interdiction ad strategic bombing missions, or even ICBM response, at some point.

But for some guys, e.g., getting shot up in a convoy ambush, they relate to the CAS mission as fish relate to bicycles.

[Kommander]

I don't have a degree in aeronautics or ground combat, but to somehow the idea of mixing "Orbital Bombardment" and "Close Air Support" does not seem like a fantastic idea.

[BDK]

Sorry, two different things.

I suspect CAS will shift to drones, being launched from a mothership - similar to how Air craft carriers replaced battleships.

For the same dollars/far less training/selection in personnel, you can send far more to look around/blow things up/etc.

Situations too violent to risk a plane or chopper could just be swarmed with drones.

Rods from God, give most* of the benefits of a small nuke, without the draw back - definitely not CAS.

*Not sure, I think a nuke is the only explosive safe to use on a biological or chemically protected site - I don't think, in any kind of conventional energy release, the thermal wave moves faster than the pressure wave.

[JustinR]

That's the thing Aesop, engine technology hasn't been stagnant the last 30 years. The new models of Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, and Embraer all have the new geared turbofan designs which are 10-15% more fuel efficient than the engines currently in use in the airliner fleet. The engine manufacturers use common components in their designs, for instance the CF-34 engine used on many regional jets is a derivative of the TF-34 that's on the A-10, although the civilian version looks to have gone through many itinerations and upgrades according to Wikipedia. All the money in the civilian market is pushing for fuel efficiency right now, and those efficiency gains will bleed into any new engines hung on the A-10 or its successor.

The problem I have with all the F-35 bashing is the fact that MANY military aircraft have undergone upgrades to fix design problems, hence that famous saying (by Bob Hoover if I recall) "don't fly the A model of anything." The first P-51's were underpowered because they didn't have the English Merlin engines in them, and had poor rearward visibility for a fighter. The first F-14's were underpowered and eventually had much better engines put in them. Yea, the program has undoubtedly been poorly managed, but the F-35 is also a revolutionary upgrade in terms of technology. We've never tried to field something this complex before, so of course there are going to be problems. I'm not defending the Pentagon's procurement system at all, but it seems a little premature to declare the aircraft a failure when we really haven't even been able to see what it CAN DO yet. The intelligence of the Air Force to rely on a new multi role aircraft when specialized aircraft can do better is suspect, but hell in this budget environment post-cold war, they could barely get a few F-22's, so it's understandable to some extent why they attempted to spread the cost of a new generation of aircraft around by making it multi role. All I'm saying is that when you are pushing the bleeding edge of technology, there are going to be some cuts along the way.

[Aesop]

The F-35 bashes itself. There are kids who were born when it was supposed to enter service who will be old enough to fly it brand new by the time it actually does. Meanwhile other nations are moving on, and the only thing going up is not the airplane, just the cost per unit price, to the point that we'll never be able to afford the number originally thrown around. It's capabilities (on paper) are already being lapped by other nations' already-flying competition, and now this latest word that it'll be another year before they even test to know where they effed up.
And it's gutting three entire military branch budgets, and will for a decade or more.

People running this project, going back a decade, should be rounded up and stood up against a wall for treason, and their underlings sent away for fraud for some decades.

But I should hope engine tech has progressed in 30 years.
You'd think, if CAS were a priority, some of that would have trickled into the A-10 already.
The last A-10 (of 716) rolled off the Fairchild line in 1984, 31+ years ago.
Since engine power is the main bitch in the linked piece, you'd think some bright young stud would have said "Let's upgrade the engines on this thing to the new Asskicker2000 Turbofan, and then we get more speed after a run, better fuel economy, more loiter time, etc.!" and they would have fallen all over themselves to take some of the ridiculous load proposed for the F-35 off its plate, at a bargain cost. Ditto for dropping in mods to upgrade the plane's capabilities. Both planes win, and so does the USAF (and the Navy and Marines, indirectly).

But wait, it doesn't break Mach, so Not A Priority.

Congress has already spoken: they aren't dumping the A-10.
Some guy could make stars by simply shepherding an engine upgrade into it, and then they could start figuring out simple ways to upgrade capabilities. And they could probably do it with less than 10% of just this year's overruns and unit price increases due to problems with the F-35.
If the new engines alone cost a whopping $1M@, they could re-engine the entire A-10 fleet for the price of a baker's dozen of the 2400+ planned Thunderjugs.
Considering that could be 13 of the 500 planes that will be effed up before they even finish testing two years from now, that would be money better spent on upgrading what we have, rather than buying more of what isn't going to work until some future date - we hope.

The entire A-10 run cost $13.5B in 1984 dollars.
The current F-35 run is projected (so far) to cost $76B on an apples to apples 1:1 replacement ratio.
If Cadillac did that, the current price for an El Dorado would be $176K. For which sum you could actually almost buy a Lamborghini Huracan.
And nobody, anywhere, is raving that the F-35 is a Lamborghini.

You would think that someone at DoD would have recognized this long since, unless the reality is that Lockheed has pictures of SecAF and some number of generals naked, with midgets, farm animals, and underage girls. No other explanation makes sense.

[JustinR]

They could have re-engined the B-52 with four, instead of eight engines, sometime within the last 40 years as well, and probably cut its fuel burn by half by switching to turbofans, but we know how well THAT has gone. At least someone, somewhere, was able to upgrade the KC-135's engines. The glacial pace of upgrades would be comical if it wasn't our national defense.