A-10 Thunderbolt II

Jschmus · December 21, 2009, 11:33:30 AM

*BUMP!*

I apologize for resurrecting yet another dinosaur, but I couldn't see starting another thread to ask one little question. The little pylon mounted below the A-10 cockpit was specifically installed to permit carriage of the Pave Penny laser spot tracker pod. My understanding is that the Pave Penny has been withdrawn in favor of the more capable LANTIRN system, yet the pylons remain on all A-10s, even the reworked A-10Cs. Why?

elmayerle · December 21, 2009, 07:55:55 PM

My first thought would be that it simply was not cost effective to remove them. My second thought is that perhaps something else was mounted there. I'd say odds are on the first thought.

Sauragnmon · December 22, 2009, 05:25:09 AM

I'd just be left to wonder why it couldn't be reworked to incorporate Lantirn?

I have to admit, the modified Hog looks very interesting - Might borrow those canted fins on an idea. Find that appealing in some ways.

Weaver - I Love the idea for the N/AW Hog, with the FLIR on the gun pod - call me crazy, doesn't LANTIRN incorporate FLIR as well as designation capacity for weapons? I'd opt for that if possible, and use it to allow increased capacity - operate it then as an EA-10, with a couple of ARMs, some AAM defense, and then a couple of bombs as well - The canted tails might do nicely on that unit as well, and the unit could then operate in a dual role of SEAD and Low Level Tactical Support - maybe even add a gun pod or two just to allow it the capacity to strafe outlying enemy positions once the radar has been disabled.

Weaver · December 22, 2009, 06:57:47 AM

Quote from: Sauragnmon on December 22, 2009, 05:25:09 AM
I'd just be left to wonder why it couldn't be reworked to incorporate Lantirn?

I have to admit, the modified Hog looks very interesting - Might borrow those canted fins on an idea. Find that appealing in some ways.

Weaver - I Love the idea for the N/AW Hog, with the FLIR on the gun pod - call me crazy, doesn't LANTIRN incorporate FLIR as well as designation capacity for weapons? I'd opt for that if possible, and use it to allow increased capacity - operate it then as an EA-10, with a couple of ARMs, some AAM defense, and then a couple of bombs as well - The canted tails might do nicely on that unit as well, and the unit could then operate in a dual role of SEAD and Low Level Tactical Support - maybe even add a gun pod or two just to allow it the capacity to strafe outlying enemy positions once the radar has been disabled.

Well I was envisaging early '80s Brit hardware for this particular one, so it's pretty much a mixture of Harrier GR.7 and Tornado kit.

The LANTIRN targeting pod incorporates FLIR and laser designation (as does the Brit TIALD), but there's an additional fixed "navigational FLIR" in the pylon of the navigation pod too. You need a dedicated fixed FLIR to project onto the pilot's HUD, so that his view of the world doesn't get snatched away when the nav spots something of interest and slews the targeting FLIR off boresight.... The closer the navigational FLIR is to HUD, the less parrallax there is between their respective sight lines and the more "natural" the view through the HUD: this is why the GR.7's FLIR is in that ugly bump ahead of the windscreen. Since The RAF wouldn't using the A-10s boom-refuelling receptacle, it seems the natural place to put a FLIR.

The idea is that both single and two-seaters are Night/All-Weather capable: the two-seaters are there to support the operations of the singles by doing high-workload stuff like laser-designation and defence suppression, rather than attacking targets themselves. You could see a two-seater FAC identifying a target, calling in another one to jam/ARM the defences, and then designating for a single-seater that drops an LGB/Laser-Maverick on it. Alternately, a flight of single-seaters could "work" an area of the battlefield, while two-seaters fly "overwatch", slapping any Shilkas or SA-8s that dare to light up....

pyro-manic · December 22, 2009, 09:45:23 AM

I like the sound of that, Weaver. My only worry is that the 'Hog is a bit on the slow side - makes it very tricky to dodge any missiles that do get off the rails. It'd look great with all the lumps and bumps and a fistful of ALARMs though.

Sauragnmon · December 22, 2009, 12:57:07 PM

One could reason that with the canted tails, you've got some extra measure of force along the pitch plane when you need to bank turn, so ostensibly you'd be a little bit more than a pregnant yak when that time comes.

I'm sorry for not clarifying on some of my aforementioned post - I meant the Pave Penny hardpoint with the incorporating LANTIRN - it'd be practical, it was where they had the last unit. Just a thought on my skull at the time.

I like your wolfpack - or hogpack? - idea, it's quite a practical one. Equally on the point, though, there's a lot of ordnance on a single hog - a couple TERs loaded of LGB's wouldn't be impractical on the EA-10B even with a gunpod and a couple of ARMs - hell, I would reckon the hardpoints strong enough you could even pair up the ARMs on a couple of hardpoints just to bring more fun to the party. As to drop tanks, the question comes to be - how long do you want this thing to loiter in the area? The Hog might not be fast, but my gods does that thing loiter on its own without tanks.

Jschmus · December 22, 2009, 02:13:54 PM

I think the problem with mounting LANTIRN on the pylon used for Pave Penny is size. The Pave Penny is listed as being about 32 inches long, while the LANTIRN targeting pod is a little over six feet long, and the navigation pod is a little shorter.

Incidentally, I just found this article from the Air Force newsletter at Warner-Robins, dated April 11, 2008. Apparently, they have a shop there which is upgrading Pave Penny pods for redeployment.

http://www.robins.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123094105

Weaver · December 23, 2009, 04:21:52 AM

Quote from: pyro-manic on December 22, 2009, 09:45:23 AM
I like the sound of that, Weaver. My only worry is that the 'Hog is a bit on the slow side - makes it very tricky to dodge any missiles that do get off the rails. It'd look great with all the lumps and bumps and a fistful of ALARMs though.

Well with all the SA-7/8/9/13s around in Soviet armoured formations, real Hogs would have had that problem anyway. At least these can pre-prep the area and/or fight back.

Weaver · December 23, 2009, 04:34:27 AM

Quote from: Sauragnmon on December 22, 2009, 12:57:07 PM
One could reason that with the canted tails, you've got some extra measure of force along the pitch plane when you need to bank turn, so ostensibly you'd be a little bit more than a pregnant yak when that time comes.

I'm sorry for not clarifying on some of my aforementioned post - I meant the Pave Penny hardpoint with the incorporating LANTIRN - it'd be practical, it was where they had the last unit. Just a thought on my skull at the time.

I like your wolfpack - or hogpack? - idea, it's quite a practical one. Equally on the point, though, there's a lot of ordnance on a single hog - a couple TERs loaded of LGB's wouldn't be impractical on the EA-10B even with a gunpod and a couple of ARMs - hell, I would reckon the hardpoints strong enough you could even pair up the ARMs on a couple of hardpoints just to bring more fun to the party. As to drop tanks, the question comes to be - how long do you want this thing to loiter in the area? The Hog might not be fast, but my gods does that thing loiter on its own without tanks.

True, but then you don't see them loitering and carrying everything-but-the-kitchen-sink: there's a trade off. Also remeber that even in the '80s, the RAF didn't have the lavish tanker assets of the USAF, nor could those tankers have operated close to the front line of WWIII in Germany. The way I see it, the FAC/EA 2-seaters are the first in and the last out, so they get a centreline tank, a couple of jamming pods on the outboard stations, a couple of AIM-9Ls on the next ones in, and then between four and eight ALARMs on the remaining wing pylons. An alternative possibility would be to replace the A-10's wingtips with Nimrod-style (but smaller) ECM pods, thereby freeing up a couple of pylons.

Another thing I considered was to give the two-seater an Oerlikon KCA with a small ammo box in place of the GAU-8: that way it could fire the same ammo as the single-seaters, but it would still free up most of the ammo-drum volume for black boxes.

Your "EA-10B" designation raises an interesting question: what would the RAF designations be, given that they've never had dedicated FAC or Defence Suppression aircraft under the post war system? Thunderbolt G.1 (no "F for Fighter", no "R for Recce") seems reasonable for the single-seaters, but I'm a bit stumped for the two-seaters. Thunderbolt GR.2(E)?

pyro-manic · December 23, 2009, 05:16:18 AM

Some Hunters were designated FGA for Fighter Ground Attack, so what about just GA or EGA?

Mossie · December 23, 2009, 07:23:44 AM

The RN had their Hunter GA.11's so that designation would work.

Shasper · December 23, 2009, 09:14:21 AM

Re: Nose mounted FLIR

The only hiccup I could see with this installation is the possibility of the FLIR getting blinded by the Avenger's muzzle flash & the smoke.

Weaver · December 23, 2009, 09:20:28 AM

Quote from: Shasper on December 23, 2009, 09:14:21 AM
Re: Nose mounted FLIR

The only hiccup I could see with this installation is the possibility of the FLIR getting blinded by the Avenger's muzzle flash & the smoke.

Good Point! Diving at the ground in the dark and the HUD goes white - probably not the best of moments......

Think a simple muzzle shield would do the job? It'd have to be pretty hefty just to stop the muzzle blast from eating it......

Shasper · December 23, 2009, 05:10:14 PM

Back when the Hawg first hit the street there were sporadic occurrences of one or both engines not digesting the Avenger's gun gases properly (also there was alot of muzzle flash), various arrangements were tried but nothing really helped & the problem has never been fully resolved.

Now I dont know jack about the inner workings of a FLIR but I'd think it would be possible to have a filter installed so it would pop-up whenever the gun is employed.

Sauragnmon · December 23, 2009, 07:09:01 PM

Optionally, one could have it set up so that the FLIR system drops into the nose when the gun's being targetted - remember, you put it on the old fuel recepticle so you have space to do that. That's gotta be pretty risky if you can wind up with the engines kicking out when you use the gun too long and flood them with gasses.

I'm wondering if you can't just turn the FLIR off with a catch-switch linked to the gun trigger... that would just be the simple solution - or have the FLIR on a ball so it rotates and aims down into the bay to avoid getting spattered with unburned powder potentially.