A-10 Successor

-{SpoonmaN}- · 11 Oct 06,, 13:06

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The Apache is great n' all(when it works, which aint too often)....but i do not recall and entire Sqn of A-10s ever being shot to pieces in a single battle as happend to the 11th Aviation Bde(Apache) over Karballa.

Didn't like 6 of them take out like 40 Iraqi tanks at the battle of Medina Ridge during GW1?

**glyn** · 11 Oct 06,, 15:23

[QUOTE=Shipwreck;277537]Thanks, Glyn.

Would you hazard an educated opinion on the A-10 ? My understanding is that there was much scepticism about the rationale behind the Hog especially in Western Europe.

Ha. I have no first-hand knowledge of the A-10, and other than a copy of the Flight Manual have no definitive sources to consult. My personal opinion is that it is a very capable machine obviously designed to deal with massed armour in the event of WW 3, that is now being deployed for tasks it was never designed, or intended to do. It has obviously been improved over the years and is still a valid weapon in the arsenal of the USAF. I wish the RAF had a couple of squadrons of them, but I doubt todays light blue hierarchy would agree - even if the Treasury did!

Moreover, I seem to recall reading somewhere that said scepticism was particularly strong in the RAF, which makes your opinion even more interesting.

I don't remember any consensus of CrabAir opinion about the Thunderbolt II. Only the observation that the US alone can afford such a wide variety of types in their inventory. The logistical problems of having so many to operate, maintain, service, upgrade and provide air and ground crews for must be the stuff of nightmares.

**Bill** · 11 Oct 06,, 21:16

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Any factual evidence to back-up this specific claim perhaps ?

You know that for the most part that's true, because we have already covered it extensively in the other thread. Just looking for more trouble are ya?

The Colonel at my board said that with no flaps the A-10 can pull a 1300 foot turning radius. That is WAY less than the turn radius of the F-16, which is considered to be one of the most agile non-vectored thrust jets around.

That alone would validate the foundation of GGTharo's statement.

**Bill** · 11 Oct 06,, 21:18

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

Didn't like 6 of them take out like 40 Iraqi tanks at the battle of Medina Ridge during GW1?

Not sure about Medina in specific, but if they did, that'd be an instance where they worked as advertised. As i said, when they work, they're great.

They are however finicky birds, and helos in general are a lot more vulnerable to ground fire than jets cause they're so much lower and slower, and typically more fragile.

**Bill** · 11 Oct 06,, 21:26

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

I'd also welcome a source for your statement regarding the number of IR SAMs shot at the Hog.

Yeah, i bet you would.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

When I read the quote from the CPGW report, I was under the impression that the emphasis was more on insufficient *agility* ("rate-of-climb, acceleration and maneuver") than insufficient speed.

A-10 pilots sure dont seem to feel manuever deficient. At least not the ones on my board.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The subject was raised during the 2005 GE brief I alluded to in the other thread, and GE's reply at the time was that the envisioned TF34-100B upgrade would not significantly affect range and loiter time.

Is there more recent info on the subject that would indicate otherwise ?

The new TF34s arent much more powerful than the current engines and they are much newer, so they probably do not negatively affect loiter, etc. HOWEVER, the kind of thrust that would be needed to get the hog up to the 475-500kt region would LIKELY (based purely on commonsense) greatly reduce range and loiter.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

May I ask whether you have a source that would confirm that combat speed after PUP would be around 400-425 knots ?

Just a guess based on the % of thruse increase of the newer engines. The A-10 is never going to be fast, it is too draggy, but that much more thrust could very well give it another 25-50kts of level flight speed.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

My understanding is that the Hog's current combat speed at sea level is 330 knots, so a ~70-100 knots increase is not insignificant and sounds a bit surprising to me.

IIRC the top speed of the A-10 is 370ish knots. Never exceed speed is about 450kts. Dive attack speed is as much as about 400kts.

So to me, getting 425kts in level flight isnt much of a stretch from new engines. Im sure if this is incorrect Glyn will say so.

**glyn** · 11 Oct 06,, 22:24

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Yeah, i bet you would.

A-10 pilots sure dont seem to feel manuever deficient. At least not the ones on my board.

The new TF34s arent much more powerful than the current engines and they are much newer, so they probably do not negatively affect loiter, etc. HOWEVER, the kind of thrust that would be needed to get the hog up to the 475-500kt region would LIKELY (based purely on commonsense) greatly reduce range and loiter.

Just a guess based on the % of thruse increase of the newer engines. The A-10 is never going to be fast, it is too draggy, but that much more thrust could very well give it another 25-50kts of level flight speed.

IIRC the top speed of the A-10 is 370ish knots. Never exceed speed is about 450kts. Dive attack speed is as much as about 400kts.

So to me, getting 425kts in level flight isnt much of a stretch from new engines. Im sure if this is incorrect Glyn will say so.

I shall have to consult the dash One for the A-10A, especially the Performance Data Manual to see what the bird can really do.
In general though aircraft can be crudely lumped into two types, those that are thrust limited (and would thus benefit from extra horses) and those that are drag limited (where increasing engine power shows very little, if any, improvement in speed). In this case a drag-reduction program would be pointless as all the oo-nasties hang under the wing!
Of course, performance is not just about speed. You could look for (say) shorter take-off run, or faster rate-of-climb, or increased warload/range. Nailing new (different) engines on to an established airframe is not such a simple business as many may suppose, as the balance is almost bound to be different - and do you really want to carry unproductive lead ballast around with you? Otherwise it's a major job to sort out the weight/balance/trim without a virtual redesign - a clear case of diminishing returns.
The A-10 airframe appears to be like the proverbial brick-built s***house, so I assume there is ample fatigue life left in it.
Now I must spend a couple of hours on those manuals...........

**GGTharos** · 11 Oct 06,, 23:00

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Any factual evidence to back-up this specific claim perhaps ?

Ehm...the A-10 has what, 700' turn radius.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/a-10.htm

This some two hundred meters which is pretty tight - it can likely be tighter under certain conditions

**GGTharos** · 11 Oct 06,, 23:03

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The new TF34s arent much more powerful than the current engines and they are much newer, so they probably do not negatively affect loiter, etc. HOWEVER, the kind of thrust that would be needed to get the hog up to the 475-500kt region would LIKELY (based purely on commonsense) greatly reduce range and loiter.

The TF-34 upgrade does not increase overall thrust, IIRC - meaning, each engine is still in the 9000lbs class. What it -does- do is increase thrust in certain parts of the flight envelope, meaning high-altitude thrust is improved (jet engine performance falls off as altitude increases).

This means that the A-10 will be able to fly higher and faster at high altitude, or haul greater payload at those altitudes.

**Bill** · 12 Oct 06,, 02:57

Originally Posted by GGTharos

Ehm...the A-10 has what, 700' turn radius.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/a-10.htm

This some two hundred meters which is pretty tight - it can likely be tighter under certain conditions

One of the A-10 pilots on my forum disavowed that 700 foot figure, but he did stipulate 1300 feet with no flaps, and that is STILL a very tight turning radius. The F-16 is around 2000 feet.

**Bill** · 12 Oct 06,, 02:59

Originally Posted by glyn

I shall have to consult the dash One for the A-10A, especially the Performance Data Manual to see what the bird can really do.
In general though aircraft can be crudely lumped into two types, those that are thrust limited (and would thus benefit from extra horses) and those that are drag limited (where increasing engine power shows very little, if any, improvement in speed). In this case a drag-reduction program would be pointless as all the oo-nasties hang under the wing!
Of course, performance is not just about speed. You could look for (say) shorter take-off run, or faster rate-of-climb, or increased warload/range. Nailing new (different) engines on to an established airframe is not such a simple business as many may suppose, as the balance is almost bound to be different - and do you really want to carry unproductive lead ballast around with you? Otherwise it's a major job to sort out the weight/balance/trim without a virtual redesign - a clear case of diminishing returns.
The A-10 airframe appears to be like the proverbial brick-built s***house, so I assume there is ample fatigue life left in it.
Now I must spend a couple of hours on those manuals...........

There's already a engine program for the A-10, but it's unfunded. The A-10s also have some serious wing cracking issues(the previous corrective program, "Hog Up", was inneffective at correcting these issues), but new wings are already funded for (IIRC) 215 birds, with about 100 of them already done.

PS: I have an A-10 operations manual too, i was speaking in generalities wrt speeds on purpose. No reason to make Haji's job any easier.

**Bill** · 12 Oct 06,, 03:01

Originally Posted by GGTharos

The TF-34 upgrade does not increase overall thrust, IIRC - meaning, each engine is still in the 9000lbs class. What it -does- do is increase thrust in certain parts of the flight envelope, meaning high-altitude thrust is improved (jet engine performance falls off as altitude increases).

This means that the A-10 will be able to fly higher and faster at high altitude, or haul greater payload at those altitudes.

Shipwreck has specifics, but IIRC he said the new engines that are unfunded are about 15% more powerful, which is what i was basing the speed improvement assumption on.

-{SpoonmaN}- · 12 Oct 06,, 06:27

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Not sure about Medina in specific, but if they did, that'd be an instance where they worked as advertised. As i said, when they work, they're great.

They are however finicky birds, and helos in general are a lot more vulnerable to ground fire than jets cause they're so much lower and slower, and typically more fragile.

You don't have to preach to me all I need to do is follow the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and I can do the math on how many Blackhawks, Cobras and Apaches have gone down vs Hogs and I can see that clearly demonstrated for myself.

**Bill** · 12 Oct 06,, 17:10

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

You don't have to preach to me all I need to do is follow the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and I can do the math on how many Blackhawks, Cobras and Apaches have gone down vs Hogs and I can see that clearly demonstrated for myself.

Twas just clarifying my friend.

**bfng3569** · 12 Oct 06,, 22:52

what ever happened to Rutan's ARES?

**~~Shipwreck~~** · 13 Oct 06,, 02:40

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Shipwreck has specifics, but IIRC he said the new engines that are unfunded are about 15% more powerful, which is what i was basing the speed improvement assumption on.

I've just had a chance to gather more infos on the TF34-GE-101 envisioned for PUP, so I might as well share some of the stuff I've been told :

1. The original TF34-GE-100 engine was modified to the -100A in the 1980's per the Hot Section Life Improvement (HSLI) modification. Changes were made to the stage 1 HPT blades, transition liner and a few other areas, which increased red line temps and life limits.

2. The -101 is a *more radical* upgrade of the -100A where about 35% of the parts in the existing engine would be changed, including a new fan based on CF34-8C design, upgraded turbine section materials for higher temperature operation at key mission points, a digital fuel control allowing fan speed control, plus some performance and durability upgrades to maintain desired thrust and life objectives.

3. The TF34-101 upgrade provides 15% to 30% more thrust for the A-10, bringing
* up to 30% more acceleration capability,
* up to 2X turn rate improvement
* up to 3X time-to-climb improvement from 10,000 feet to 20,000 feet at full combat weight
* up to 5,000 lbs more payload on hot day conditions
* up to 20% reduction in takeoff distance during hot day conditions
* up to 5,000 feet ceiling increase for operations above 20,000 feet

PS : none of the above is classified, just like the canopy vs 14.5mm data was in the public domain.