Fairchild A-10 Projects

fightingirish said:
Early nose and gun modification projects. Source: Combat Aircraft Monthly - March 2013, page 52
More and better pictures: https://postimg.org/gallery/361pot9p0/
:eek: Looks more like an anteater than a warthog! ;)
A-10 Gun Gas Diverter Photos
Several photos of a prototype gun gas diverter for the A-10. Gun gas divertion was a major problem for the A-10. Taken at an Elmendorf Air Force Base open house in 1985. Credit: Corbin via HyperScale
Sources:
 

Attachments

  • 20170806_A-10-Gun-Gas-Diverter-Photo-22.jpg
    20170806_A-10-Gun-Gas-Diverter-Photo-22.jpg
    143.9 KB · Views: 474
  • 20170806_A-10-Gun-Gas-Diverter-Photo-21.jpg
    20170806_A-10-Gun-Gas-Diverter-Photo-21.jpg
    246.5 KB · Views: 392
  • 20170806_A-10-Gun-Gas-Diverter-Photo-20.jpg
    20170806_A-10-Gun-Gas-Diverter-Photo-20.jpg
    226.4 KB · Views: 314
  • 20170806_A-10-Gun-Gas-Diverter-Photo-24.jpg
    20170806_A-10-Gun-Gas-Diverter-Photo-24.jpg
    238 KB · Views: 349
Last edited:
Fairchild report on A-10 FAC circa 1979-1980.
 

Attachments

  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    426 KB · Views: 552
  • 10.jpg
    10.jpg
    573.3 KB · Views: 381
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    173.9 KB · Views: 533
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    539.3 KB · Views: 551
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    345.8 KB · Views: 558
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    244.4 KB · Views: 506
Kokoro said:
Is it just me or is the engine pylons wrong on the model? are they meant to be smoother?

These are my photographs - 175th TFG, Maryland Air National Guard A-10s in the hanger.

The first two show the pylon transition and I'm posting the other two because some of the warthog fans here might like them.

Mike
i love that version
 
Here's a link, with the relevant section quoted, about plans to re-engine the A-10 around 2003-2006.

It mentions both a TF34-GE-100B and a TF34-GE-101 as solutions to the A-10's lack of engine power, but while it talks about performance gains in terms of percentages and multiples, it doesn't provide hard numbers. Does anyone have more information, especially the actual numbers, about these two engine proposals?
As formally documented in MSIP ORD (2001), the A-10 has long been recognized as underpowered. As of 2003 General Electric's proposed TF34-GE-100B engine for the A-10 would provide 15 percent more sea-level thrust and about 30 percent more thrust at altitude with improved thrust-specific fuel consumption. Cost for the fleet of about 370 A-10s with flight-testing would come to about $1 billion-the equivalent of 12 F-22s or 33 F-35s.

During FY04, the current Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff for the Air Force (SECAF/CSAF) requested the USAF address this need. The most effective solution is a kit upgrade to current engine. The upgraded engine must 1) still fit in current nacelle, 2) not require major structural mods, 3) produce sufficient additional thrust to address identified deficiencies, and 4) be funded from within A-10 program in accordance with (IAW) SECAF/CSAF direction. To meet cost and schedule constraints, the A-10 Engine Upgrade must be based on mature technology. The kit approach offers best value, yet meets A-10 and warfighter needs and provides the fastest delivery of the propulsion upgrade at a significantly lower risk. This modification approach saves three to four (3-4) years over development.

In 2005 the United States Air Force (USAF) sought interested sources regarding a requirement for a TF34 propulsion performance upgrade for the A-10 weapon system. The sponsoring activity is Aeronautical Systems Center, Agile Combat Support Wing, Propulsion Squadron, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. There is a proposed FY06 target year to begin a three (3) year Systems Design and Demonstration (SDD) effort ($160M budget). The modification kit purchases must begin with adequate leadtime to support kit installations by early FY09, which allows synchronization with planned TF34-100A overhaul schedule. Acquisition planning factors include the following assumptions: 1) The acquisition effort begins at Milestone B, 2) 356 A-10s will be modified, 3) in addition, 68 spare engines will be modified. Key A-10 engine upgrade attributes include: air to air refueling at higher altitudes, reduced susceptibility to FOD, maintaining existing TF34 reliability, operating above the threat with a 500 FPM rate of climb on a standard day at 20,000 feet, decreasing fuel flow, and reducing transit time.

In 2006, the A-10 Propulsion Upgrade Program entered the system design and demonstration phase. This program upgrades the A-10's current TF34-100A engines to provide approximately 30% more thrust. This will help overcome some limitations that the A-10 faces when operating from expeditionary airfields at high field elevations and temperatures. It will also improve the A-10 performance at medium altitudes and increase its weapon load, thus improving survivability and more fully leveraging the capabilities of the Precision Engagement modification and ATPs.

As of 2006 the flat-rated TF34-GE-101 doubles the hot day thrust output over current engines, eliminating take-off gross weight limitations that preclude today's A-10 from delivering its most powerful mission punch. Other -101 performance advantages include: A significant reduction in takeoff distances during hot day conditions. Improved high altitude performance. 30% more acceleration capability and a 2X turn rate for improved maneuverability. An approximate 3X time-to-climb improvement at full combat weight. CONUS to European deployment in one-third the time - without tying up tanker assets and valuable manpower. A positive "single engine rate of climb" safety margin at maximum gross takeoff weight.

By leveraging a $400-million GE investment for commercial engine development and a solid production base, the TF34-GE-101 can be procured on an affordable Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) basis. Maintenance costs (including spares, labor and overhaul) are projected to be less than one-fourth the cost of maintaining current engines. Coupled with a lower maximum thrust rating for robust, reliable operation, significant savings can be realized over the remaining life of the A-10 fleet. A true force multiplier, the A-10 with TF34-GE-101 engines can offload the F-16 Block 40/50 aircraft from close-air support missions and free these valuable assets to perform other critical tasks.
 
For fun I did this from a couple of Precise models blanks. Based on the wind tunnel pictures of the tri-tail. I thought that I posted this somewhere on the Forum so excuse the duplication.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2443.jpg
    IMG_2443.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 426
  • IMG_2445.jpg
    IMG_2445.jpg
    394 KB · Views: 499
For fun I did this from a couple of Precise models blanks. Based on the wind tunnel pictures of the tri-tail. I thought that I posted this somewhere on the Forum so excuse the duplication.

Can really see where the inspiration for the Cobra Rattler toy came from. It's the basic tri-tail with engines moved around!
 
An AX-92 detailed drawing o_O;):cool:

A-10 all weather rear pit:

More pictures at the Cradle of Aviation Museum web archive.
If this is the wrong topic or these pictures have been posted before, please let me know.
 
Last edited:
One A-10 did some kinky stuff in the early days... o_O
Twitter:
One of the prototypes was used in tests to disperse/divert gun gas.
Looks more like a bridle than anything else (well, at least to me), so the term "Gunsmoke" does come to mind all right...


Looks more like temporary structural reinforcements to me.
I suspect that they suffered cracks during early test-firing and riveted those extra longerons on the outside to stiffen ... in the shortest possible time.
I also suspect that production versions got thicker internal bulkheads and longerons.
 
Post #128
USAF engineers were thinking well ahead ... considering that A-10s did not fight over Afghanistan until March 2003.
That engine upgrade looks most valuable in the Afghan mountains, some of which tower to 24,580 feet above sea level!
 
AX-92, well lots of power but a shame about the range. What would that be, about 10 miles?
 
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.
As I look at these images again, it looks like the wing of the wind tunnel model has the tanks at the tips ala T-33 style. Really?!

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
As I look at these images again, it looks like the wing of the wind tunnel model has the tanks at the tips ala T-33 style. Really?!

I think that they are tactical nukes. In that case I would suspect that they were testing a proposed emergency laydown configuration there. That would have been very tricky to pull off in practice.
 
As I look at these images again, it looks like the wing of the wind tunnel model has the tanks at the tips ala T-33 style. Really?!

I think that they are tactical nukes. In that case I would suspect that they were testing a proposed emergency laydown configuration there. That would have been very tricky to pull off in practice.

Why, when the page the picture comes from specifically notes that they were tip tanks? I'd bet they are some version of the Douglas Aero 1D low drag drop tank, probably 300 gallons or so. Dimensions and tail shape seem about right, but this might be stretched as it has a longer straight center section than the drawings of the 300-gallon tank.


Adding tip stations for drop tanks almost makes sense, because it would add endurance and leave underwing stations free to maximize warload without requiring MERs. Adding tip stations for a hypothetical emergency nuke delivery capability would make no sense at all. If they were to use the A-10 for nukes (considered but dismissed) only one would be carried (presumably on centerline) because the chances of surviving the first detonation to drop a second bomb would be basically zero.
 
Your fuel tank theory makes sense, but note that I said laydown deployment, which basically means that you can use airdropped nukes as improvised nuclear landmines. Usually done though by supersonic aircraft at medium to low altitudes, with detonation set to an impact or, less common, a release timer. Some nukes were even capable of being rigged for signature detonation as a secondary or alternative option (though the last would likely be used as a last resort). Remote command detonation would be yet another option with some designs but seldom used. So in a dire situation an A-10 could in theory end up carrying & deploying two nukes at different locations to try and slow down an armoured thrust or similar.
 
Last edited:

It's gonna take a lot of jet engines to make all those jet engines fly...

 
Last edited:
Your fuel tank theory makes sense, but note that I said laydown deployment, which basically means that you can use airdropped nukes as improvised nuclear landmines. Usually done though by supersonic aircraft at medium to low altitudes, with detonation set to an impact or, less common, a release timer. Some nukes were even capable of being rigged for signature detonation as a secondary or alternative option (though the last would likely be used as a last resort). Remote command detonation would be yet another option with some designs but seldom used. So in a dire situation an A-10 could in theory end up carrying & deploying two nukes at different locations to try and slow down an armoured thrust or similar.

Except that as built the A-10 had no nuclear wiring. Even if that were added, there's no reason not to hang such weapons on conventional underwing hardpoints. It's not like you'd need any other ordnance on such a mission, just the jammer pod and perhaps extra fuel.
 
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.
Hi, I couldn't help but notice that weirdo Cobra Rattler n the bottom middle. Thats a joke right? That can't be real can it?
 

When I worked at the USAF Armament Division at Eglin AFB FL back in the late 1970s, an engineer I didn’t know walked into my office.He had heard I was interested in odd ammunition. He was retiring and had something he hated to throw away. He handed me a box and in it was the round below and a large spool if 16mm film. The label on the film is pictured below. He told me that it was part of the development of a multibarrel gun for the A-X program which became the A-9/A-10 competition and resulted in the A-10 Warthog.The engineer said the concept was pursued because it allowed the gun to be much lighter than the GAU-8 and potentially a very high velocity projectile with greater armor kill capacity.



View%203
View 3.jpg4963×2394 1.67 MB





40mmGBR-film%20label
40mmGBR-film label.jpg866×441 309 KB



The rocket has folding fins and slides into the case (which is steel) until just the blue part of the nose is exposed. I eventually had the film put on a DVD, but it is firing trials and all it shows is spots of flame and smoke going downrange and mostly missing a huge target. no real image of the weapon.

Some years later I called the Armor Research Institute (now the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (IITRI)) on behalf of a friend, and I enjoyed the head of their museum who had worked there for many years and was now retired. When he found out I was in the USAF he said he may have something I’d like. A few days later he called again. He had gone out to their junk yard and dug out the end of the barrels of a five barrel cannon. He said that it had been a display in their lobby for many years, and had eventually been cut up. He said it had been a test of a gun boosted rocket for the USAF. I soon received a box with the barrels shown below and the tag pictured.



View%201
View 1.jpg3044×2068 762 KB

View%202
View 2.jpg2958×2861 1.13 MB





38mm%20ARI%20plaque
38mm ARI plaque.jpg1403×814 680 KB



In spite of some research, the only additional information I could find is the article below which was sent to me by Fede (of course!!!).



40mm%20AWST-Jan72
40mm AWST-Jan72.jpg1212×1134 1.18 MB



Like the ramjet boosted projectile, I am sure it isn’t a new idea and somebody out there has other examples.

I have no idea how the 38mm gun is tied up with the 40mm projectile
.
 
It seems that Rocket Assisted Projectile (RAP) ammunition was designed and successfully tested for the GAU-8 around 1976, apparently it had as much penetration at 6,000 ft as the standard AP ammunition had at 4,000 ft. However it was more expensive than the standard ammunition and so would "only be produced if the standard round becomes inadequate". I am going to assume this ammunition never saw the light of day again.

See page 118-121 (129-132 in the PDF) for more information about them: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA140367.pdf
 
Speaking to someone here at Mildenhall reckons he read a story or article in a U.S. defense journal a out a carried based Warthog. Started off as a joke and apparently along with the upgraded wings, it cites folding wings In the Future and possible carrier deployment.

i was laughing my head off but can anyone confirm any of the above please ?

cheers
 
Speaking to someone here at Mildenhall reckons he read a story or article in a U.S. defense journal a out a carried based Warthog. Started off as a joke and apparently along with the upgraded wings, it cites folding wings In the Future and possible carrier deployment.

i was laughing my head off but can anyone confirm any of the above please ?

cheers
Supposedly the USMC took a brief look at it but nothing more. There was a "What If" model USMC marked A-10 with folding wings and the like on one of the modeling forums a few years ago that looked impressive.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Speaking to someone here at Mildenhall reckons he read a story or article in a U.S. defense journal a out a carried based Warthog. Started off as a joke and apparently along with the upgraded wings, it cites folding wings In the Future and possible carrier deployment.

i was laughing my head off but can anyone confirm any of the above please ?

cheers

I think Hunt For Red October has a lot to answer for here -- there is a scene where an A-10 flight makes a mock attack on a Soviet formation with flares and a simulated gun/Rockeye pass, which sounds like the singularly worst idea anyone could have had under the circumstances.
 
Here's a link, with the relevant section quoted, about plans to re-engine the A-10 around 2003-2006.

It mentions both a TF34-GE-100B and a TF34-GE-101 as solutions to the A-10's lack of engine power, but while it talks about performance gains in terms of percentages and multiples, it doesn't provide hard numbers. Does anyone have more information, especially the actual numbers, about these two engine proposals?
A few more snippets on the Propulsion Upgrade Program (PUP) http://tealgroup.com/images/TGCTOC/sample-babeng.pdf

A-10 Re-engining In January 2005, it was reported that the Air Force had finally decided to pursue a $160 million program to upgrade the A-10s TF34-GE-100 engines (presumably to -101 standard) as the final part of the general A-10C upgrade. The service plans to buy upgrade kits for 356 aircraft, as well as 65 additional spare kits. The upgrades will be performed as field installations and will commence in 2009. The modified aircraft are designated A-10C.

TF34-GE-100/100A/101—
The -100 and -100A power the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt. The unaugmented, 9,065-lbst engine also was used on several experimental aircraft. The -101, based on the CF34-8, is rated at 11,000 lbst and has been proposed for A-10 re-engine program.
 
Binged the thread.

I think it's one of those aircraft that falls into a unique category: awesomely ugly. Alternatively, ugly but practical. There are planes that are simply ugly and nobody could like. But then there are planes like the B-52 and the A-10 that wear their ugly like a badge of honor, as if they completely don't care because they have a job to do.
The usual A-10 patch or sticker I see is "ugly but well hung"


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
Obviously the USAF Vietnam era camo!


I think Hunt For Red October has a lot to answer for here -- there is a scene where an A-10 flight makes a mock attack on a Soviet formation with flares and a simulated gun/Rockeye pass, which sounds like the singularly worst idea anyone could have had under the circumstances.
You do know just how much shenanigans went on during the Cold War regarding games of "tag" or "we know you're there, Ivan/Joe", right?
 
From this book.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    562.8 KB · Views: 150
  • 2.png
    2.png
    288.5 KB · Views: 150
  • 3.png
    3.png
    210.4 KB · Views: 153
  • 4.png
    4.png
    197.7 KB · Views: 160
  • 5.png
    5.png
    337.9 KB · Views: 164
  • 6.png
    6.png
    116.4 KB · Views: 163
  • 7.png
    7.png
    947.3 KB · Views: 131
  • 0.png
    0.png
    928.8 KB · Views: 155
From this book.
 

Attachments

  • 20.png
    20.png
    797.7 KB · Views: 357
  • 21.png
    21.png
    546.6 KB · Views: 104
  • 22.png
    22.png
    613.5 KB · Views: 94
"A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY"

This has been linked on here before (by Grey Havoc back in 2013), but I came across it today via google when wondering what had been involved in the LASTE refit, and it's really worth a more detailed mention because it's effectively a 60 page history of the A-10 from before A-X through about 2008, both technical and political (and both and inter-service politics and actual politics politics), plus about 40 pages of appendices, including the various A-X competitors.

And while most of us will have heard of the McPeak offer to trade A-10 and CAS to the Army in exchange for ATACMS and deep attack, it's the first time I've seen the rest of his proposals detailed: "Part of what made General McPeak’s recommendations more difficult to accept by the other services were the wide ranging impacts they would have had. Beyond the changes in CAS and deep strike roles, he wanted the Army and the Navy out of the space and long range air defense business, and he recommended that the Marine turn their fixed wing F/A-18’s over to the Navy."

 
"A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY"

This has been linked on here before (by Grey Havoc back in 2013), but I came across it today via google when wondering what had been involved in the LASTE refit, and it's really worth a more detailed mention because it's effectively a 60 page history of the A-10 from before A-X through about 2008, both technical and political (and both and inter-service politics and actual politics politics), plus about 40 pages of appendices, including the various A-X competitors.

And while most of us will have heard of the McPeak offer to trade A-10 and CAS to the Army in exchange for ATACMS and deep attack, it's the first time I've seen the rest of his proposals detailed: "Part of what made General McPeak’s recommendations more difficult to accept by the other services were the wide ranging impacts they would have had. Beyond the changes in CAS and deep strike roles, he wanted the Army and the Navy out of the space and long range air defense business, and he recommended that the Marine turn their fixed wing F/A-18’s over to the Navy."


I can almost see where the ATACMS issue makes sense, in that there were lots of deconfliction issues between Army deep fires and Air Force BAI flights. But the Army was never going to buy it, because it knew that left to its own devices, the Air Force would not hit the same targets that ATACMS would be shooting at, at least not in a timely manner. Some of those targets would be fleeting enough that that they could not be struck within an ATO framework.

Giving the Air Force the long-range air & missile defense systems (Patriot, THAAD, and GMD, basically) actually kind of makes sense, especially where air defense bumps up against Air Force defensive counter-air operations. (I think the Germans do it that way, for example.) But then the Army would have needed to proceed with MEADS to protect mobile forces anyway, so they'd have PAC-3 and some sort of cheaper air-defense SAM anyway because the USAF wasn't going to be providing air defense for mobile ground forces under this scheme.

And there's a bunch of stuff in there that makes zero sense at all and was totally outside of McPeak's lane. Like telling the Navy to give up long-range air defense? Um, how did the Air Force propose to provide air defense to forces at sea? Clearly it was not going to take over AEGIS on ships. And telling the Marines to pass all their CV/CTOL aircraft to the Navy was just meddling and would actually improve nothing. It would probably break Naval aviation, since the service would struggle to find pilots to fill those extra squadrons (one reason they are Marine-manned in the first place).
 
Giving the Air Force the long-range air & missile defense systems (Patriot, THAAD, and GMD, basically) actually kind of makes sense, especially where air defense bumps up against Air Force defensive counter-air operations. (I think the Germans do it that way, for example.) But then the Army would have needed to proceed with MEADS to protect mobile forces anyway, so they'd have PAC-3 and some sort of cheaper air-defense SAM anyway because the USAF wasn't going to be providing air defense for mobile ground forces under this scheme.

And there's a bunch of stuff in there that makes zero sense at all and was totally outside of McPeak's lane. Like telling the Navy to give up long-range air defense? Um, how did the Air Force propose to provide air defense to forces at sea? Clearly it was not going to take over AEGIS on ships.
I did wonder whether it was "We will take over the missiles" or "We will take over the role and do it with F-22 instead of missiles", which is even more batshit, but you could see where it would appeal to the AF.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom