My wholly unqualified thoughts:


Refurbishing:
Cost effectiveness does not come into play in politics, and fixing old planes does not move around enough money to be politically effective for the politician. Politicians would rather give lucrative new-production contracts to their benefactors.

Everyone likes shiny and new. Including the taxpayers. Try telling them you want to refurbish a fleet of 30 year old airplanes, then every critic will crawl out of the swamps to tell you how stupid the idea is to fix an obsolete platform.

Helicopters:
Helicopters have relatively high operational costs compared to fixed wing aircraft.

Helicopters have relatively low survivability compared to fixed wing aircraft.

Helicopters are only capable of speeds up to around 180mph, and have a common service ceiling below 20k ft. The A-10 can travel over 400 mph and has a service ceiling of over 40k ft.

I don't think a helicopter could be a GAU 8 platform. Leaving it to only be armed with missiles and smaller calibers means it is no more effective than drones (which are much cheaper).

A Blackhawk helicopter costs more than the final production price of an A-10. (But we would likely not be able to buy new A-10s for the same price as in 1984.)

New A-10s:
Fairchild-Republic is out of business. They were bought by a company that is only interested in product support - not new manufacture. So you would need to convince the design owner to turn it over to a manufacturer - and any manufacturer is probably going to futz up the design with their own improvements.

One more thought about A-10 vs Helicopters: The A-10 can carry 13 tons of weaponry.




<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qRsor-m9CB4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There are few military aircraft that I'd like a ride in. Even without a pilot trying to showboat G forces, the A10 would be at the top of my list.

Helicopters are great for ground support but they are fragile compared to the A-10. They can't fire a 30 mm cannon for sure and no way you can have double redundant systems on a chopper.

To safely put a 30mm shell within 20 feet of the troops and destroy ANYTHING except the good guys is unique. And it does not put just one shell it puts down a big can of whoop ass and will punch holes in any tank.

Go talk with guys who maintain and fly the A29, they hate it. It's unreliable, hard to work on, and parts support from Brazil sucks. The AT-6 was much more capable but lost the bid for the Iraq CAS program due to politics. With over 1000 delivered to the USAF and USN I'd be curious how the T-6 "barely manages to be a trainer". I've talked with F-22 pilots who claim the T-6 is the sweetest flying airplane they've ever piloted. The Scorpion is also very much still in play, and actually in many ways is being considered as a replacement for the A-10 in the CAS role.

As I remember there is a basic rule at the Pentagon, the Army does not get to have fixed wing combat aircraft. That is the job of the Air Force. The Air Force can't have have submarines or tanks.

That's why you go autonomous. Provide a directive, mass produce, set in motion and forget. They don't have to be large. Use a Master, then a mother, then swarm smalls from the mother.

If I was going to outfit an offensive I would:
- go interior rogue (terrorism with highly committed thugs, expendable)
- mess up infrastructure
- mess up water, food and electricity
- set up bio-warfare, not to kill but to tie up resources
- unleash the drones...

The whole thing wouldn't take as much resources as an all out offensive and frankly would take about a year to bring any country down that wasn't used to hardship...

Virtually all science fiction.

Only in James Bond movies and other movies about megalomaniacs can you find the large numbers of henchmen that are a willing to die for the boss. Usually one punch to the jaw drops them like a sack of flower.

The infrastructure of a country is vast. Yea, messing up some hubs will slow things down a lot and rebuild a bridge is not quick and easy.
You will need a LOT of drones and operators and a level of artificial intelligence we are not close to developing yet. You are thinking of the Terminator movies. We are a long way from that technology.

Funny misspelling of the week, there...

Go talk with guys who maintain and fly the A29, they hate it. It's unreliable, hard to work on, and parts support from Brazil sucks.

I usually only get to talk to the guys who take the green bird and finish it for the customers. And the military acceptance pilots. They seem to think the A-29 is more robust, more powerful, and more pilot friendly than the AT-6. However they agree with you on the Brazilian support.

It may be a sweet flyer, but the people I have spoken with said the AT-6 did not hold up well in the ME environment, and that the brakes sucked.

I don't know what to say, other than your guys and my guys seem to disagree. I've never flown either, so have no first-hand opinion.

When I was at Pleiku, Viet Nam (1966), I witnessed the AC-47 Gunships. Not an A-10, but it got the job done back then for ground support, thank you very much!
.
https://charliecompany.org/2012/06/01/spooky/
.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1471540221.jpg
.
~~~~~~~~
.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uKOrpyO0z48" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Matt,

I find the Scorpion interesting - do you have any inside word on it?

For the cost of a few B2's I could topple a small country in a month. Granted it would require some hardcore, 'unethical' doings but...

The AT-6 was never fielded so they must be thinking of the T-6. We upgraded the engine by 500 shp, upgraded the brakes, and made a lot of modfifocations to support high/hot operations for the AT-6. I managed a variety of engineering, modification, and flight test tasks on the program for about 3 years.

My business has multiple components on it. Nothing insider that I can share, but they will have additional aircraft flying soon and some very promising prospects for a sale.

Got to see those side firing mini gun setups a couple of times along the DMZ in Nam.

Really spectacular at night. The ones I saw had a couple of guns firing from one plane.
Looked like glowing waving ribbons of red light.

Pretty intense concentrated fire for such a Rube Goldberg creation.

Seems like the A 10 took that idea and was designed for the job.

Seeing close support from ships probably 20 miles away with big guns was also pretty mind blowing. Got to say their spotter seemed a bit out of his element when visiting us for a couple of days. Think he was happy to head back to the ship.

Cheers Richard

For the record, the Apache does fire a 30mm round. Ir is a 30x113 compared to the A-10 which is the 30x173.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/t...tachment-2.jpg

To sum up Cash's explanation. Politics and the brass doesn't like unsexy aircraft.

So on the topic of the A-10, they have already exceeded their design life significantly and are maintenance hogs, pun intended. All of the fielded aircraft were re-winged and had some significant structural upgrade/repair work done the last time we decided to not retire them. They are very useful so they get flown a LOT. Eventually they just get worn out and are not practical to keep flying. They are also overkill for the job, modern CAS is taking out a Toyota pickup or some guys setting an IED, not a tank. So there are a number of cheaper options that when paired with modern precision weapons are a much better value proposition. But none are as cool. Seeing an A-10 strafing run from an observation tower at a military range was freaking awesome, and I have several friends that are current/former Hog pilots that adore them.

This mix-up is most likely my fault.
My "remove before flight" keychain says AT-6, so I probably just thought they were all the same thing - a Pilatus PC-9 = T-6 = AT-6 = Texan II, etc.

But... what if we made flying submarines?

Wouldn't they be supermarines then?

I have piloted a lot of airplanes and helicopters...I was very lucky to be in the right place many, many times. I have stick time in T-2's, A-4's, two rides in an F-4, lots of S-3 time, P-3 time, T-45, T-34, TC-4C, KA-6, lots of back seat F-18 rides with a stick in my hand. I even have a one time good deal in an F-14. I think a few more.

The helo list is long and distinguished.

Through all of that: I wish I had gotten my float plane quals, kept my commercial tickets, etc...the little things.

But there is nothing I would have rather flown than the A-10. Maybe it is the grass is greener thing, but I don't think so. What I loved about the H-60 is that I had 3600SHP at my disposal to go see things very low and sorta fast.

A-10: Very low, very fast. The best of the best.

Helicarriers!!! SmileWavy

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/...20131024215211

The A10 is overkill UNLESS you want a pilot that is willing hang low and slow to cover your 6 on the ground.

It seems to me, when it comes to close air support, overkill is just about right.

I'll tell you what, hearing close ground support coming in, especially the A1-E's 18 cyl. roar, brought many a tear to the toughest.
No such reality as "Overkill" right then!
.

Great play on words there.

A previous poster was talking about the A10 being overkill. My point was that I wonder if they would say the same thing they needed the ground support.

I am right with you on that Joe.

Shame that the people buying the equipment don't listen to the ones using it more. That critter is purpose built to do the job. One big hammer is better than three little ones.

I think that the T-6 and A-29 would not be selected because there are single engine. The Scorpion, looks good so far, but untested.

Anyone else see where we had a pair of OV-10 Bronco's flying around in Syria recently as a test? I think that they flew quite a few missions. Do I remember correctly that they are going to refurbish/upgrade some more and use them?

Oh, you've done it now... you mentioned the OV series....

I few on these as the "technical observer" while I was in the US Army:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1471611782.jpg

We knuckled under to AF politics in the early '60s losing fixed-wing aircraft capability under ground maneuver control. The boundaries should have been altitude/air space--not equipment type. The Army should be responsible for low-level airspace in their area operations (non-oxygen flight 10,000 feet and below) and the AF should control airspaces from 10,000 feet up--which is above MANPADS SAM range--to space and from ground level to space where the Army is not in control to execute ground warfare. The U.S. Army should be able to buy/use whatever aircraft types it damn well thinks is best to get the damn job done--and win wars and save men's lives.
- MUDFIGHTERS: BRING BACK THE CACTUS AIR FORCE!


More Mohawk propaganda:
OV-1 MOHAWK
The OV-1 Mohawk Remembered Firsthand: The Mohawk's Marathon Saga | Defense Media Network

I read that too. I believe they were just testing the platform at the time, I don't think there was going to be any large scale operations with the Bronco.

I had one of these when I was a wee lad...the Cobra Rattler. It was the bad guy's plane, and was clearly based on the A-10, with some modifications (VTOL the most obvious of them).

https://latimesherocomplex.files.wor...970b-600wi.jpg

I have read/heard that they have some nasty single engine characteristics.

Three little hammers with laser guided rockets, longer on-station time, and higher fleet utilization due to reduced maintenance requirements isn't half bad either. The reality is that a lighter duty aircraft can spend more time in loiter, carry an equally lethal payload that is also more accurate, cost less to purchase, and cost less to operate. You don't need a 30 mm cannon to take out a Toyota pickup, and in a populated urban area you can't use it due to collateral damage. You can, however, use a laser guided rocket.

There have been multiple proposals to refurbish retired OV-10s. Unfortunately it's just about as expensive just to develop a new airplane. I think there are a few foreign nations still operating them.

Remanufacturing any aircraft type model series in numbers is a fools errand.

I managed two programs that started out as refurb/reman programs. We ended up building new both times.

It is nearly impossible to estimate a coherent budget aircraft by aircraft. I've tried.

The most expensive component of any reman program is "touch labor", people putting their hands on the aircraft. Like rebuilding an old Porsche, the disassemble, modification and reassemble of aircraft is touch labor intensive and very hard to predict. Building new is a breeze.

The term is "over and aboves" in contracting; what we planned for and what actually occurred from the baseline: That is where reman program go ballistic.

uh-1y
ah-1z

edit: for some reason, Pelican software won't let me put those in all caps.

Jacob, I still have that Cobra plane to this day.

Bill

I guess all we shot was Toyotas in Iraq. America's military might is not based on just barely enough to get by.

Less cost to purchase and operate? What color is the sky in your world? The A10 is far less expensive on both counts.

Does your replacement have the triple redundant systems to keep the thing in the air and can it protect the pilot from 50 mm fire? If not you can kiss your air support goodbye since the AF is only interested in protecting itself and not the Army (one reason I think the AF doesn't like the A10: they have to take care of troops instead of being glamorous high tech jockeys with cool toys.

Can you take out the enemy with your friendlies 20 meters away?

Years ago, BMW had a TV ad where they bragged that all the other cars compared their stats to a BMW. They then said something to the effect of "why not just get the car everyone wants to be like?".

Sorry, but your basis of capability is 25 years ago. Nothing we have fought since has been like Gulf War 1. As for cost per flight hour you are just blatantly wrong. Most modern military aircraft, including the A-10, spend more time in maintenance than they do in flight.

First of all, cheaper is not better. It's just cheap.
Seond, you've totally ignored the issue of protecting the pilot, redundancy of critical systems, and accuracy.

Repair cost is more than time. High tech parts are far more expensive. Cost aside, wouldn't you want to put your butt in the plane that will get you back home? Would you want the pilot to be able to spend more time (because he is safe) and have better accuracy doing support to your son on the ground? Let's exaggerate to make a point. We can drop a nuclear bomb with pinpoint accuracy but the weapon in not going to discriminate between the enemy and your son 20 meters away.
Show me real stats on an aircraft that can do what the A10 can do to the enemy AND protect our servicemen on the ground and in the air at the same time.

Sorry but per your argument we would be losing aircraft regularly in our recent wars. We aren't because the ground to air defenses of our current enemies are rudimentary at best. Beyond the "golden bb" scenario there is very little threat to any of our aircraft when operating in a counter insurgency scenario. As for the rest, sorry you are out of your league. Did you know that the AT-6 had armor for the cockpit and critical areas of the aircraft? Did you know that the AT-6 and A29 have simple pushrod based flight controls that are simpler and more reliable than the hydraulic systems on generally every military aircraft? That they can spend 3-4x more time on station without needing to refuel? That modern precision guided weapons are exponentially more accurate than the 30 mm gun on the A-10? That the AT-6 actually used the mission system from the A-10 as well as sharing most of the communication and datalink capability? I'm thinking probably not.