Fairchild A-10 Projects

[TomS]

That's kinda missing the point of PCAS. It's about CAS control technologies, really. An A-10 is being used for the unmanned part because it's a better surrogate for future CAS platforms than other available options. I'd be surprised if gun strafing is part of the PCAS effort.

 

[AeroFranz]

I'm afraid I don't have good references for that, but I remember at least an interview where a DARPA PM was talking about the advantages of having a gun. The actual stipulated goals of the program may not include strafing, which would be an order of magnitude harder than plinking a guided weapon.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Military_Aircraft_Designations/message/4786

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Military_Aircraft_Designations/message/4787

http://www.dm.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123334670

[Raises eyebrow]

 

[fightingirish]

Early nose and gun modification projects.
Sources:
Combat Aircraft Monthly - March 2013, page 52

A-10A with modified nose, gun gas investigation

cdm16694.contentdm.oclc.org

 

[Grey Havoc]

A PP presentation from 2008: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008systems/7131jacques.pdf

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf

 

[Triton]

Photograph of Fairchild Republic A-10B N/AW.

Source:

zonamilitar.com.ar

This domain may be for sale!

www.zonamilitar.com.ar

 

[GTX]

A PP presentation from 2008: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008systems/7131jacques.pdf

Interesting comment: "Serious proposal floated by CSAF to give CAS and A-10 to Army in exchange for ATACMS, space mission, et.al."

 

[TomS]

Yep, it was serious for a week or two, until it became clear that the USAF wanted to hand over the aircraft but not the budget that went with them. Also, because it appeared that the goal was to remove the Army entirely from the deep strike mission, which it was expanding into with things like ATACMS and the use of Apaches for deep attack missions rather than just CAS.


Found an interesting paper looking at the same issue from the Army perspective.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a264044.pdf

 

[yasotay]

Yep, it was serious for a week or two, until it became clear that the USAF wanted to hand over the aircraft but not the budget that went with them. Also, because it appeared that the goal was to remove the Army entirely from the deep strike mission, which it was expanding into with things like ATACMS and the use of Apaches for deep attack missions rather than just CAS.


Found an interesting paper looking at the same issue from the Army perspective.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a264044.pdf

Many an Army Aviator got the rumor and bombarded HQ with request to transition to the Hog.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

I recently had the opportunity to acquire from a friend who worked for Aero Union an original art piece of an A-10 as a fire bomber. This was seriously looked at when the USAF was talking about winding down the A-10 fleet, pre-Desert Storm and 9/11. With the events of 9/11, the idea simply never was going to happen. I have some profile artwork and design info too - will figure out where I put that and post that too.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Jemiba]

If the normal "payload" is an indication for the amount of water, that could have been carried,
it should have had nearly double the capacity of the Grumman/Conair Turbo Firecat ! Coupled
with its higher speed it perhaps is a pity for the flying firebrigades, that the USAF changed its
mind.

 

[famvburg]

Thanks for the artwork. I think I've only seen a side view somewhere.

 

[Stargazer]

Just had an eyegasm on this amazing painting! Thanks Mark for sharing this beauty.

I will never understand those who say the A-10 is ugly...

 

[ksimmelink]

I know it's not definitive, but the USAF Museum does state that the N/AW demonstrator (tail number 73-1664) was re-designated as an A-10B when it was converted.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3206

The page seems to contradict itself:

Besides the A-10 N/AW, the USAF investigated the conversion of a limited number of A-10As into two-place trainer aircraft. These trainers were to be designated A-10B, but the program was canceled before any aircraft were modified.

Type	Number built/converted	Remarks
YA-10A	2	A-X CAS prototype
A-10A	6	Pre-production A-10
A-10A	707	Production A-10
N/AW A-10	1 (cv)	Night/Adverse Weather prototype
YA-10B	-	Trainer proposal, canceled

These data seem to clearly indicate that the N/AW A-10 was never reassigned as A-10B.
Yet later on, the page says:

73-1664 later converted to the A-10B Night/All Weather two-place A-10

I was working on A-10s at Davis Monthan at the time and we were told that the two-seat A/W/N version was going to be the A-10B. Now I understand that this wasn't official, but it was how we were referring to it. A training version would have been a TA-10x if it was using the official Air Force nomenclature of the time. If it was just a standard two seat A-10 for training it would have been a TA-10A, and if it had all the systems of the A-10B, it would have been a TA-10B. When the warthog began to do target spotting duties and was equipped with additional communication equipment it was referred to as the OA-10A. The Air Force was very anal about applying the proper type designation to an aircraft to match it's intended mission.

 

[ksimmelink]

Yep, it was serious for a week or two, until it became clear that the USAF wanted to hand over the aircraft but not the budget that went with them. Also, because it appeared that the goal was to remove the Army entirely from the deep strike mission, which it was expanding into with things like ATACMS and the use of Apaches for deep attack missions rather than just CAS.


Found an interesting paper looking at the same issue from the Army perspective.


http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a264044.pdf

Very interesting reading. I had hoped that the intra-service bitchiness had gone away, but I guess not. Even though I am an old Air Force weanie, I have always thought that ever since the Army Air Corps separated from the Army to become the Air Force they have become the bully on the block and have treated the Army very poorly. I understand that they think they are defending their turf, but what really is sad is that many of the projects that they blocked Army Aviation from pursuing, the Air Force never provided to the Army adequately anyway. The Air Force of the 50s and 60s thought they could win any war without soldiers by strategic bombing and ICBMs. It turns out that they were wrong. I am so glad that the Army was able to get Air Cav Divisions up and going, even though the Air Force thought that it was a big mistake. I wish they could just cooperate and work together for the common good. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[ksimmelink]

Although I'm not a Hog buff, it has always struck me that this was a very useful plane that has been badly treated by the USAF. It never got the upgrades it needed. The A-10C upgrade, limited as it is, should have been done 15 years ago. The NAW version is further proof of this (a capability the USAF could have used, but ignored). That said, there was a time in the early 1990s when the A-10 was scheduled for retirement, and yet it's still serving.

The Hog is an awesome aircraft, and though many find it ungainly, to me it's a thing of beauty! (at least for an aircraft!). I too believe that it was not given its full potential... not to mention the fact that it could have been put to good use in alternate missions and configurations (well, the OA-10 was a step in that direction).

A-10 is by far the best loved aircraft of the US Army. So well loved that after the Air Force planned on putting all of them in the boneyard in preference to fast jets, the Army seriously considered pulling them out and using them. This was a serious political concern for the Air Force. I used to have opportunity to work with them as a helo driver. Those guys had a very different mind set from their brother zoomies.

The A-10 is also loved by the Crew Chiefs that work on them. My time in the Air Force I worked on F-4Cs, F-4Ds, F-4Es, A-7Ds and finally the A-10A. The A-10 is a dream to work on. Big, spacious, and because it was subsonic it could be held together by chewing gum and duct tape. Well, maybe not chewing gum. An engine change was simple and quick. Engine runs could be done right on the flightline (no need for big sound suppression run-up stands), and it had big barn doors all over it that opened with very few fastners that gave you access to anything that could possibly need fixing. I loved my F-4s, but man they were nasty to work on. Every panel seemed to have hundreds of screws in them and it usually happened that as you were taking off the panel one or two screws recepicles would break loose and you had to call out the sheet metal shop to remove the screws and replace the recepticles. And best of all the A-10 very seldom broke down.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Hi All -

Here's the profile I have - note it is a separate tank and not a faired belly installation like the other artwork.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[GTX]

Three customers, two in the Middle East and one in South East Asia, were leading candidates for A-10 sales... Fairchild expected to sell 75-80 aircraft in 1983-5

Fairchild pushed the use of the A-10 as a maritime strike aircraft, particularly in areas such as South-East Asia

Source:
Bill Sweetman, A-10 Thunderbolt II, Modern Fighting Aircraft 1984

Countries allegedly interested in A-10: Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, South Korea, Thailand, Egypt (unsourced claims on forums)

Digging back a few ears with this one, but I recently read a comment somewhere (trying to remember where exactly - will post if I recall) that Fairchild wanted to develop/produce an A-10 with F404 engines (plus other features) to help make the aircraft more exportable. One of the first customers was supposedly Malaysia with a Sea Control variant with Penguin and/or Harpoon missiles. Does anyone have any more details or can confirm/disprove this?

 

[TomS]

I know the concept is mentioned in Bill Sweet man's book on the A-10, but I don't know if it was a serious proposal. I think you'd be hard-pressed to use those missiles without a decent sea search radar.

 

[Hood]

Jane's 'Civil and Military Upgrades 1993-94' states that a night attack export version of the A-10 was available in single seat form and that the two-seater was a combat-ready trainer version. It would have; Westinghouse WX-50 radar, Texas Instruments AAR-42 FLIR, Litton LN-39 INS, Honeywell APN-194 radar-altimeter, Ferranti 105 laser rangefinder and Kaiser HUD. LANTIRN is mentioned as a method of improving the all-weather capability but does not make it clear whether this was intended for the export all-weather A-10 or the USAF A-10A.

 

[famvburg]

ISTR reading that Israel was interested in an F404 powered version of the A-10. Might have even been on here on SPF somewhere.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Raytheon_to_begin_Phase_3_on_DARPA_Persistent_Close_Air_Support_program_999.html

 

[quellish]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Raytheon_to_begin_Phase_3_on_DARPA_Persistent_Close_Air_Support_program_999.html

Ah, so that's where Bussing is now

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the A-10B two seat version was extended 20 inches in its tail fins.

 

[fightingirish]

This is part of a set of original A-10 wind tunnel used to design the A-10 that were saved from the scrap yard by myself and others who worked in the A-10 system program office at that time. This is a special piece because it show how they were looking at wingtip tanks for the Hawg. Looks to be 600 gallon tanks...can you imagine 600 gallon wingtip tanks on the A-10?

Found this photo while going through some of my files yesterday. It's the NAWs two-seat A-10B in a hangar at Edwards AFB.

Sales booklet for the two-seat A-10B NAWS aircraft

Source: https://www.facebook.com/thewarthogpen
Notice the Flight International cutaway with the one-piece canopy for the A-10B.

 

[Pioneer]

G'day guys
Found this on Youtube:

View: http://youtu.be/rEdy84YGf1k


I've always had a lot of time and respect for Pierre Sprey and the 'Fighter Mafia'!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[fightingirish]

Fox News 24 - Video report: A-10 gets new life as storm chaser

A retired A-10 is getting a new lease of life as a storm chaser. Funded by the National Science Foundation, Zivko Aeronautics will modify the jet at Guthrie-Edmond Regional Airport.
A computer server system will be installed where the GAU-8/A Avenger weapon system used to be. The system will use sensors on the wings to detect things like wind speed, pressure and movement of a storm. Other miniature sensors will be released above a storm. All the gathered information is then sent to researchers working on the ground.

 

[ouroboros]

I assume any space not occupied by computers and sensors will be made of steel and/or concrete to fix the Cg shift from losing that huge gun. Are they going to leave the ammo container area empty though, or fill it with a fuel tank, because the guy describes the computer rack as being under the cockpit (presumably for access that the ammo hold wouldn't provide)?

 

[blackstar]

"Sales booklet for the two-seat A-10B NAWS aircraft"

Actually, that's what I thought it was too. But look closely and it is for at two-seat trainer version of the A-10. That's not the same as the N/AW A-10. The trainer would be able to be flown from the back seat and used for training, whereas the N/AW was primarily for the attack role.

 

[ReccePhreak]

Three customers, two in the Middle East and one in South East Asia, were leading candidates for A-10 sales... Fairchild expected to sell 75-80 aircraft in 1983-5

That was towards the end of the A-10's production run.

]
Fairchild pushed the use of the A-10 as a maritime strike aircraft, particularly in areas such as South-East Asia

Thailand eventually purchased used A-7E Corsair IIs - after abortive Tornado and AMX sales efforts.

Source:
Bill Sweetman, A-10 Thunderbolt II, Modern Fighting Aircraft 1984

Countries allegedly interested in A-10: Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, South Korea, Thailand, Egypt (unsourced claims on forums)

Pakistan was set to purchase the A-7E in the late 1970s but the sale was blocked due to concerns over its nuclear program.

Well, now that Thailand no longer flies their A-7Es, and the A-10 will eventually be sent to the "boneyard", and it really strains their F-5Es to carry napalm & large LGBs, maybe Thailand will get some refurbished A-10s.

That gives me an excuse to build an A-10A in Royal Thai Air Force markings. ;D
Just have to figure out what camo scheme they will use. :-\

Larry

 

[blackstar]

"Sales booklet for the two-seat A-10B NAWS aircraft"

Actually, that's what I thought it was too. But look closely and it is for at two-seat trainer version of the A-10. That's not the same as the N/AW A-10. The trainer would be able to be flown from the back seat and used for training, whereas the N/AW was primarily for the attack role.

I looked in Jenkins' 1998 book on the A-10. He mentions some of the variants. It gets a bit confusing and Wikipedia is incomplete on this. But essentially one A-10A got converted to the Y/A-10B which was used as the N/AW prototype. The plane's data block does say "Y/A-10B," so that was the only A-10B ever produced. But Fairchild-Republic was marketing several versions at the time which could have become the A-10B--either the N/AW version, or the Combat Ready Trainer. So the illustration of the dual cockpit above is actually the A-10B Combat Ready Trainer, although an A-10B N/AW version would have been similar.

 

[r16]

ı trawled a book , Rupert Red 2 (?) by Jack Broughton and he mentions he got a job offer from the Republic Corporation at the end of his stint as the Thunderbirds team commander . He says In addition to the F-84s rolling off the production line, they were involved in exploring the potential of further development of Kartveli’s far-out F-103. The new F-105, which was supposed to be in production, was encountering serious contract problems with the air force, and the A-10, dubbed the Warthog due to its ugly appearance, was on the drawing board.

sorry for the font size , ı couldn't find the way to decrease it , but which ancestor of A-10 this can be at what must be 1957 ?

 

[stimpy75]

while surfing i came along this

 

[RAP]

A couple of A-10 reports from DTIC:

Weapons Delivery

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADB004598

Air Force Evaluation (Systems) of A-10A Prototype

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADB004597

 

[FighterJock]

while surfing i came along this

Nice find stimpy75, I wonder why no production two-seat A-10's were ever built?

 

[dan_inbox]

I wonder why no production two-seat A-10's were ever built?

They were. They're called OA-10A. <-- Erratum: the OA-10 is a single-seater.
And the order for the trainer version was cancelled by Congress. So indeed only a single A-10 was converted to 2-seater.

 

[Dynoman]

The OA-10, from what I understand is a standard single seat A-10 used in the Forward Air Control role. The two seat versions of the A-10 were the A-10 NAW all weather night attack aircraft (later redesignated YA-10B) and the A-10B trainer (which was never built). The development testing ceased on the YA-10B after the LANTIRN pod system came out, which allowed existing platforms (like the faster flying F-16 that can ingress/egress quicker) to have the advanced navigation and targeting system. The AF already had the A-7 Corsair II (already in use with the USAF as an attack aircraft) and its two seat version, which flew in tests against the YA-10B. The AF and its allies were not interested in the YA-10B. The A-10B was considered not necessary as a trainer for the A-10A as it was supposedly a relatively straight-forward aircraft to fly. The A-10 was relegated to the CAS role.

 

[TomS]

The OA-10, from what I understand is a standard single seat A-10 used in the Forward Air Control role.

Yep. The only physical difference between an A-10A and an OA-10A is a couple of radios for air-ground liason.

I think the A-10C is pretty much wiping out the OA-10/A-10 distinction by giving the whole fleet better datalinks and communications so which aircraft gets used for what mission is going to be down to crew training, rather than aircraft designation.

The two seat versions of the A-10 were the A-10 NAW all weather night attack aircraft (later redesignated YA-10B) and the A-10B trainer (which was never built). The development testing ceased on the YA-10B after the LANTIRN pod system came out, which allowed existing platforms (like the faster flying F-16 that can ingress/egress quicker) to have the advanced navigation and targeting system. The A-10 was relegated to the CAS role.

Well, the A-10 had always been "relegated" to CAS (with a side order of BAI). The major breakthrough was that LANTIRN's automatic target tracking made it possible (just barely) for one person to manage a FLIR/laser targeting pod, where older systems like PAVE TACK needed a dedicated WSO. LANTIRN wasn't limited to fast-jets; quite a few A-10s got it too.

 

[dan_inbox]

The OA-10, from what I understand is a standard single seat A-10 used in the Forward Air Control role. The two seat versions of the A-10 were the A-10 NAW all weather night attack aircraft (later redesignated YA-10B) and the A-10B trainer (which was never built).

You are right, indeed. My picture of the A-10 N/AW is mis-labelled.
I will correct my wrong post above.