Did They Go Too Far with the C?

[hassata]

In getting deeper into the sim, the thought struck that perhaps the USAF just made the plane too damn complicated. The A10 was a rugged stick and rudder gun designed to operate with minimal support close to the front lines. The C has had a major avionics upgrade and has gone from down and dirty to a high altitude precision bomber. Have they upgraded an aircraft right out its primary purpose. I had the same feeling when the F16 was transformed from a cheap 9G frontline fighter to the complicated platform it is today. Maybe that was a good idea in the end, but sometimes you can go from a master of one trade to an apprentice of many. Is there anything in the air force inventory that can preform the A10A's former role should the need ever arise? And should I care since the upgrade has led to one hell of a sim for us to mess around with?

[sweinhart3]

What you mean getting shot at lower altitudes and with less strike precision? I would think the increased upgrades would be a plus to survivablity. Seems only marginally more complicated to me. Flying the plane didnt change outside of making navigation easier.

[Grimes]

Is there anything in the air force inventory that can preform the A10A's former role should the need ever arise?

 

Its not like they removed the main cannon or anything. Its still the same basic aircraft as the A-10A, it just has more advanced avionics which allows it to full fill a more useful role in the modern times. Yes its design focus has shifted from a Soviet tank destroyer to a precision weapons platform, but that is a sign of the times. If it needed to, it would still decimate enemy tank formations.

[aaron886]

Makes it more effective. Not terribly complicated... I've flown maybe 15, 20 hours and I can keep up with the systems fairly well. (Doing SEAD without getting shot at? Well that's another story.)

[GGTharos]

The systems are in fact fairly simple to use and understand as long as you understand the principles behind them. The switchology might appear daunting at first but it really isn't a big deal either. 2-3 hours and you'll be operating the thing without any problems.

[Cali]

They try to make things as easy for the pilot as they can. As far as maintenance...they try to make it as hard as possible :(. Sometimes I want to meet the designers and KJH&^$^ )( *&(%^CV ) (*&*&BCS $@WCNIUYU )()( )(*HBYRT. <----enough said!

 

Just think of how many hours these pilots go through before they even sit in the aircraft. It's not like a F-16 or F-15 where they have 2 seat version. They have a lot of sim time, cause when they strap in, it's only them in there. A IP can't take over when things get bad.

[Bulletstop]

I agree the systems once you learn and understand them are pretty straight forward and can be a real blast, no pun intended :).

 

 

Bullet

[coolts]

I learned the startup on 2-3 sittings. Not bad. not too complex. I think what Hassata means is that the A-10 has gone from a dedicated CAS platform to somewhat of a multirole one. The actual deployments and combat roles of the hog far outgrew its original design.

 

That’s a testament to its original design though, and that of the Falcons. That’s why they have enjoyed such longevity. Multirole = versatility = lowers costs = happy budget holders.

 

I know what he means though. Putting along at 300kts @ 20,000ft just feels wrong and i feel very vunerable with just 2 x heaters at that altitude. If a Flanker appeared on my RWR at that altitude i would feel very out of place. And be screaming for my CAP.

 

IRL though youw ouldnt be doing that until total air superiority was achieved. In MP games though we will be hog-meat so wil proable stay low.

Edited October 21, 2010 by coolts

[galagamo]

Umm....No! IRL you want to be as far away as possible from anything that would shoot you down.

You say "well where's the fun in that?" but it's not your @ss in the tub.

In a sim, yea it's fun as h3ll, cause there's no risk.

[asparagin]

2-3 hours and you'll be operating the thing without any problems.

 

2-3 earth hours or is this tharos-time?

[MBot]

It is an interesting point. I would say for todays mission, the A-10 is not really required anymore. Sitting at 15k feet and throwing around PGM doesn't specially require the airframe of the A-10.

 

My suggestion has always been to aquire a couple of Airbus A-330 or Boeing 767 and strap some targeting pods and a dozen of LGBs under its wings. And voila, you have the ultimate, cheap, 10 hours loiter time, CAS bomber :) The cannon could easily be replaced by a larger variety of bomb callibers.

Edited October 21, 2010 by MBot

[Sticky]

...... Is there anything in the air force inventory that can preform the A10A's former role should the need ever arise? ...

 

Yes, the A10C.

[GGTharos]

... Both?

 

2-3 earth hours or is this tharos-time?

[sweinhart3]

I think thats sorta true. Im still having some difficulty remembering some of the lesser used hotas commands. Ive put in about 4.5hours sim time and aside from an indepth knowledge of the cdu, I think I have a decent grasp of most of the avionics and I can perform all the basic flight maneuvers as well as targeting and weapons employment. Achieving accuracy and efficient targeting of multiple bad guys is a different story.

[power5]

It is an interesting point. I would say for todays mission, the A-10 is not really required anymore. Sitting at 15k feet and throwing around PGM doesn't specially require the airframe of the A-10.

 

My suggestion has always been to aquire a couple of Airbus A-330 or Boeing 767 and strap some targeting pods and a dozen of LGBs under its wings. And voila, you have the ultimate, cheap, 10 hours loiter time, CAS bomber :) The cannon could easily be replaced by a larger variety of bomb callibers.

 

I think you mean AC-130 variants. Already have it and use it. Not sure what kind of bombs it uses if it uses any, but its canons are very effective.

[hassata]

a couple of Airbus A-330 or Boeing 767 and strap some targeting pods and a dozen of LGBs under its wings. And voila, you have the ultimate, cheap, 10 hours loiter time, CAS bomber

 

Actually makes sense. Good luck selling something that practical to the military-industrial complex though.

 

Edit: What I meant in part in the OP was you wouldn't want to throw two to three hundred C's at the Fulda Gap, hypothetically speaking.

Edited October 21, 2010 by hassata

[GGTharos]

They already do it with B-1's.

[Steel Jaw]

The A10 is still relevant IMHO: it can slowly loiter over a battlefield, put eyes on target, and get in close into the bad guys chilli.

 

The pschyological effect is astounding.

 

I quote thusly from p203 of the excellent must-read book Warthog (ISBN 002881021x) of an Iraqi high-ranking officer:

 

The single most recognizable, and feared aircraft was the A10. This black colored jet was deadly accurate, rarely missing its target. ...Although the actual bomb run was terrifying, the aircraft's loitering around the target area prior to target acquisition caused as much, if not more anxiety since the Iraqi soldiers were unsure of the chosen target.

[hassata]

They already do it with B-1's.

 

But I think the point is retrofitting a used passenger jet could save a few clams.

[Steel Jaw]

But I think the point is retrofitting a used passenger jet could save a few clams.

 

Jet liners are not gonna be close enough to the bad guys or mean-enough-looking to instill the required level of fear.:D

 

Flying the A10 into combat is akin to flying 40,000 pounds of death and fear.

[Oscar]

How you employ the weapons platform is always going to depend on the threat environment. I'm sayiing nothing new here. If your threat exists below 5-10k and you have air superority (ala OIF/OAF), then the A-10C is the perfect platform - cheap, affordable, effective. If your threat exists above 5-10k and you do not have air superority (ala ODS), then the A-10C may not be the perfect platform - maybe you want an F-16CJ. The threat is going to dictate how you arm and deploy the weapons platform. Its something that mission planners/builders need to consider for sure. If they build the mission with minimal to no fast movers and the threat is only low, then hang the GBU's and go high; if there are a lot of fast movers, hang the mav's and go low.

[hassata]

The single most recognizable, and feared aircraft was the A10. This black colored jet was deadly accurate, rarely missing its target. ...Although the actual bomb run was terrifying, the aircraft's loitering around the target area prior to target acquisition caused as much, if not more anxiety since the Iraqi soldiers were unsure of the chosen target.

 

I think they used to call them 'hell-bats' or something.

[MBot]

They already do it with B-1's.

 

But you would think that an Airbus A-330 is slightly cheaper to operate :)

[Fimble]

In getting deeper into the sim, the thought struck that perhaps the USAF just made the plane too damn complicated. The A10 was a rugged stick and rudder gun designed to operate with minimal support close to the front lines. The C has had a major avionics upgrade and has gone from down and dirty to a high altitude precision bomber. Have they upgraded an aircraft right out its primary purpose. I had the same feeling when the F16 was transformed from a cheap 9G frontline fighter to the complicated platform it is today. Maybe that was a good idea in the end, but sometimes you can go from a master of one trade to an apprentice of many. Is there anything in the air force inventory that can preform the A10A's former role should the need ever arise? And should I care since the upgrade has led to one hell of a sim for us to mess around with?

 

Welcome to the world of post cold war budgets. It is far cheaper to modify a platform to a more relevant role than design, build, test, and most of all maintain a brand new, specifically-designed-for-one-role craft every time the battlefield changes.

[element1108]

The avionics upgrade can also be used at lower alt's and minimize blue on blue incidents. Higher rez and updated avionics will help with target ident that's for sure. The ability to link with other aircraft and mark ground positions on a tad is also invaluable. The C can still perform the tasks of the A, but THEN some.

 

Going from 25,000 dropping jdams on targets then being called in to support ground troops in a danger close position is possible.

 

They say to effectively fly an F-16 into combat you would require a Ph.D worth of knowledge. There is nothing simple about modern day fighter/bomber pilots.

 

Offtopic: Rumors circulating TOP GUN 2, director Ridly Scott, starring Tom Cruise with Jerry Bruckheimer producting.

 

Back on topic: A-10C YEAH! ;)