A-10 Thunderbolt II

Silver Fox · December 24, 2009, 10:35:10 PM

Skyfox: I'd try to keep the ammo drum nearer the CofG myself. The nose I would reserve for sensor space, maybe a small UAV class radar and a FLIR turret.

Hog-N: There's no reason a podded sensor capability couldnt be added... eventually I want to do a 'definitive' version of my navalized Apache and I've considered doing just that.

Weaver · December 26, 2009, 09:29:14 AM

Quote from: Shasper on December 24, 2009, 07:25:19 PM
So the Sea Hawg would work in conjunction with a S-3/SH-3/SH-60?

Like that idea: a Viking with extra sonobuoys and/or fuel in it's bomb bay that can hang around all day, and a SeaHog with 8 x Mk.46s and a centreline tank that can do likewise. Keep the gun (not always loaded) for other missions, like littoral patrol. Shouldn't even be too much of an extra maintenance burden for the CVN, since they both have the same engines.

norseman · January 24, 2010, 08:14:29 AM

What is the current limited fire rate on the A-10, I had heard it was fairly low to what is the theoritcal max? For a 2 seat night strike or naval/AS aircraft having the nose free for radar and other electronics would be a big boon. Surely also having 2 Oerlikon KCA's (one either side of the nose) would give pretty much the same fire power (1500 rpm per gun and the same ammo)?

also, anyone thought of a belly trainable turret in the 2 seater similar to the Bronco tests with 20 and 25mm guns?

Jschmus · January 24, 2010, 01:09:52 PM

Quote from: norseman on January 24, 2010, 08:14:29 AM
What is the current limited fire rate on the A-10, I had heard it was fairly low to what is the theoretical max? For a 2 seat night strike or naval/AS aircraft having the nose free for radar and other electronics would be a big boon. Surely also having 2 Oerlikon KCA's (one either side of the nose) would give pretty much the same fire power (1500 rpm per gun and the same ammo)?

also, anyone thought of a belly trainable turret in the 2 seater similar to the Bronco tests with 20 and 25mm guns?

According to the data quoted on Air Vectors, the GAU-8 can fire at 2,100 rounds per minute or 4,200 rounds per minute (which works out to 35-70 rounds a second), and is capable of maintaining the 2,100 rate even if one of the gun's hydraulic motors is damaged.

norseman · January 24, 2010, 01:30:01 PM

Thanks Jschmus, Did a little digging since my last post and from what I can tell the 2,100rpm is the norm in practise. Therefore a couple of KCA's giving 3,000rpm (or 2 x 1,800rpm in the late lighter model - unbuilt I think?) would be a very viable alternative and a lot less draggy.
I have read stories on the performance of the KCA in the Saab Viggens and seemingly it was a monster of a gun and very accurate (heard of 4 mile+ successful target engagements). I would imagine for quick strafes that in real terms 2 KCA's would give more lead on target due to no spin up time and also with the KCA's being a bit more accurate (less vibration and buffet among other things).

Mossie · September 01, 2010, 05:43:04 PM

I found this snippet in an article on the GPU-5 Pave Claw gun on the Harpoon Headquarters site:
http://www.harpoondatabases.com/Encyclopedia/Entry2418.aspx

QuoteThe GPU-5 Pave Claw entered USAF service as a result of a mid-1980s squabble with the US Army. Since 1948, an interservice agreement stated that the US Army would not operate fixed-wing combat planes. However by 1986 the US Army felt that this was unrealistic on a modern battlefield and requested that Congress transfer the A-10 Thunderbolt II tank-buster force to Army control. Congress agreed in 1989 and it was planned to transfer all A-10s to the Army in 1991.

The plan to transfer the A-10 force to the Army never happened. On 26 November 1990, Congress indefinitely delayed the move due to Desert Shield. After the USAF's stunning anti-tank performance during Desert Storm, the transfer was permanently cancelled.

Gives that A-10 on page 3 a bit of credence. How would a more modern US Army scheme look, overall olive drab like the helicopters or grey like other fixed wing assets?

GTX · October 26, 2010, 12:24:22 AM

FAR148 · November 14, 2010, 05:47:45 PM

How about an IAF A-10I "Chazir"

More pics and info here http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,23670.msg348556.html#msg348556

Steven L

GTX · June 02, 2011, 12:44:31 AM

Quote from: Weaver on December 26, 2009, 09:29:14 AM
a SeaHog with 8 x Mk.46s

I like your thinking!

DarrenP · June 03, 2011, 01:14:54 PM

Very Nice.

1 that always was interesting was in a Larry Bond book the South Korean Airforce having A10's and using them against the North & Chinese.
Also wonder if the Shah of Iran hadn't been overthrown whould his Airforce have received them against the Threat of Invasion from Russians post Afghanistan invasion of 80's and used them against Iraq if they'd started a gulf war?

rallymodeller · June 03, 2011, 06:22:57 PM

Me? I'm thinking crop duster. Remove the entire GAU-8 assembly and add ballast and a great whopping chemical tank. You could even leave the inner-wing and fuselage pylons on and use drop tanks for additional storage.

rickshaw · June 03, 2011, 08:12:23 PM

Quote from: rallymodeller on June 03, 2011, 06:22:57 PM
Me? I'm thinking crop duster. Remove the entire GAU-8 assembly and add ballast and a great whopping chemical tank. You could even leave the inner-wing and fuselage pylons on and use drop tanks for additional storage.

IIRC someone proposed a fire bombing version of the A-10. Why not use that idea? It had a enlarged belly tank.

GTX · June 04, 2011, 12:01:40 PM

Quote from: rallymodeller on June 03, 2011, 06:22:57 PM
Me? I'm thinking crop duster. Remove the entire GAU-8 assembly and add ballast and a great whopping chemical tank. You could even leave the inner-wing and fuselage pylons on and use drop tanks for additional storage.

I like.

Whiteraven_97 · June 12, 2011, 06:54:08 PM

As I seem to recall, it was a group of crop duster pilots who "attacked" the Russian Kirov (?) in A-10s in The Hunt for Red October (novel, not movie, obviously).

Sauragnmon · June 12, 2011, 08:24:18 PM

If it were true, I'd declare it a perfect example of Clancy's horrendous slant in his writing. Getting an A-10 close enough to a Kirov to be of benefit would be nigh on impossible considering the battery of Surface-to-air ordnance presented, and the horrendously slow speed of the A-10. The words Sitting Duck come to mind. Consider equally, that regardless of approach angle, the A-10 would be taking twice as much gunfire back as it would be giving against a Kirov - at the worst angle of approach against Kirov herself, there's Two AK-630's with line of fire. At the best approach angle, there's Four AK-630's with angle, and two 100mm guns to boot, not to mention SA-N-4 and SA-N-6.

sorry, rant over.