Fixed wing ac in the Army

[TheTokenGook]

Found an interesting article at F-16 net:

A-16 Close Air Support
In the 1980s, the USAF started setting aside F-16s for the planned A-16 modification, a dedicated close air support version of the F-16. In 1989, the designation Block 60 was reserved for the A-16. The A-16 Block 60 was to be equipped with a 30 mm cannon and provided with a strengthened wing structure for anti-tank weapons such as 7.62 mm min pods. This project failed because the 30 mm gun would heat up and senge the inner components of the left fuselage.

There were two block 15's that were converted to this modification; they were based at Shaw airforce base. The Block 60 did not go into production and the A-16 became wrapped up in the debate about close air support. The supporters of the A-16 project wanted the USAF to replace its A-10A Thunderbolt IIs with A-16s, arguing that the A-10 was too slow to survive above a high-tech battlefield. Detractors argued that the A-16 had insufficient range and load-carrying capability to make an effective attack aircraft, and, in addition, it would be too vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire.

The Army argued that the Key West agreement of 1948 (under which they were prohibited from operating fixed-wing combat aircraft) was now obsolete, and that the USAF's A-10s should be turned over to them for use alongside AH-64 Apache helicopters. In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10As and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.

However, all of these plans came to naught on November 26th, 1990, when the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10 aircraft for the CAS mission. No order for the A-16 was ever placed.

Just thought it was interesting becuase I had no idea that the A-10 was considered to transfer to the Army and I had no idea about the Key West agreement of 1948.

[StuporMunky]

:cry:

That second to last pharagraph set me up for a long hard fall down dissapointment hill. I think i'll go slit my wrists, after being teased so.

Seriously though, that would be my dream job in the Army. Why not join the AF? Uh...because there's no good reason to.

There was a CPT in the AF, a test pilot, so he was badass, that I talked to a few months ago. He said his favorite plane was the A-10, "because of the big ass guns." He was prime for the Army.

Damn Key West aggreement...

[airjun]

I like cheese

[Sammy Sandbag]

Yeah I had heard rumors before about how the AF was suppose to give the Army the A-10s. To me it makes better sense to have the close air support aircraft in the Army. The Marines already have the Harrier, F/A-18s and will soon have the JSF STOVL version. The Army should have it's own attack aircraft. We used to have a few piston and turbo prop a/c, like the Skymaster and Bronco but those were phased out not long after Vietnam. These type of aircraft are going to be dealing with the ground forces hand in hand anyway, might as well cut out the middle man (AF). It would probably also benefit the Air Force, allowing them to concentrate on air superiority and mobility (logistics). Just think how much more efficient things would operate on the battlefield.

p.s. StuporMunky, welcome. And how the hell are you in London and an MSII?

[airjun]

I think he is from Mil. com

[Sammy Sandbag]

While we are on the topic of fixed wing CAS AC in the Army, might as well throw in this link for a video of the JSF, yet another fighter/attack AC that'll be going to the Navy, Air Force, and Marines, but not the Army.

http://www.clipstream.com/demo/video/j/jsf/jsf_frameset4_bottom.html

[airjun]

The Navy walked out on Key West its time the Army does so too

[TheTokenGook]

While we are on the topic of fixed wing CAS AC in the Army, might as well throw in this link for a video of the JSF, yet another fighter/attack AC that'll be going to the Navy, Air Force, and Marines, but not the Army.

http://www.clipstream.com/demo/video/j/jsf/jsf_frameset4_bottom.html
The JSF might not even be produced. The Navy got their Super Hornet F-18E/F, the AF got their F/A-22 Raptor, and those are two very costly and major projects. There is talk that the F-35 may not be produced after all. And if the US doesn't buy it, no other country could afford it becuase the per unit cost would sky rocket.

[Sammy Sandbag]

I don't really see that big of a need for it anyways. They should be looking for a replacement for the A-10. Something with high survivability (twin engines, titanium tub, analog controls) that can give good CAS. A high flying, single-engine, stealth fighter doesn't do Joe Snuffie much good when he's pinned down from close range. The AC-130 and A-10 are what they need to be looking at for inspiration.

[TheTokenGook]

I've talked about that with others in AFROTC, active duty AF, and others, but it looks like the AF at least is neglecting that field. There is such an emphasis on high tech fighters and multi role aircraft (jack of all trades, master of none), it seems like people often forget that boots hold the ground. And these soldiers need CAS. The A-10 is supposed to be good for another 15 yrs, but as of now, there is nothing in developement for it's replacement. And you know how long it takes to develop something. And don't forget, the AV-8 needs to be replaced in a few years too.

[Sammy Sandbag]

A few years? How about 10 years ago at least. That thing is ancient. Well it's not just the AF that has let stealth and technology go to there head. Ever heard of the RAH-66? Yeah, that was a real wise investment. "Hmm, let's see.. How can we double the price of a helicopter without adding anything to it's capabilities?? I know, well try and make a 'stealth' chopper" Great fucking idea. The Army is tying gobs of money up in the Comanche that could be spent elsewhere. The Marines have the Osprey, we've got the Comanche. Both are equally pointless. Last time I checked, the idea of a helicopter is to fly below radar, hugging the terrain. Why waste millions to make it stealth when it really doesn't need to be? Fucking moronic I tell you. What's worse is that any time they want to carry a sizable weapons load, they have to put it on additional pylons, totally defeating the purpose of its "stealthy-ness." The twin engine super cobra whould have been a better helo for a fraction of the price.

[airjun]

Well if they dont build the F-35, its the Super Hornet that killed it. The Navy insisted on it even though they knew the were going to get the F-35. The Super Hornet is nothing but a bigger F-18, that cant even match up to the latest Soviet Fighters.

[Sammy Sandbag]

That's why it's a F/A-18. The US shouldn't have to worry about any air to air combat in the near future. Most of our enemies can't even get their planes off the ground. Remember the Iraqi Migs that were burried underground.

[TheTokenGook]

Actually the F/A-18E/F is far superior to most Soviet made aircraft. Probably the only aircraft that would be a challenge to it is the Su-27 Flanker family. There were complaints in the Navy about how the Super Hornet could not compare to the F-14 Tomcat, but in reality the only advantage the Tomcat has over the Hornet is it's Phoenix weapons systems, which is useless in today's war. When the idea to develop the Super Hornet came around, the Navy had two options: 1. Build a newer more advanced version of the Hornet 2. Upgrade the current fleet of F-14s to the F-14D standard and build more airframes. Obviously, the went with the former.

[TheTokenGook]

and Sammy, I agree. Too much is being put into the Comanche. Instead of focusing on stealth, they need to focus on an armored and effective tank killer/cas ac. Other than that, it seems like the Army is pouring money into the Comanche just to have a stealth ac. Adding stealth to an already low flying helicopter is like making me into the invisible man. The helicopter already is not going to be on radar and I'm already not going to be noticed by any chicks.

[Sammy Sandbag]

Points for the wity comparison Gook. But the Comanche's role is a scout/recon A/C not a tank killer, that's the 64's job. It's replacing the 58D Kiowas (which are also a poor choice), and therefore above all else it needs to be light, agile, small, and fast. A MD-500 would make a better canidate for a scout helo, its only disadvantage being its a side-by-side pilot/copilot config. But so is the 58, so clearly that's not a big issue. The 58 and 66 are both capable of firing Hellfires, so yes they can bust tanks, but that isn't their primary roll. Like you said, making a helicopter stealth is pointless. Retractable gear and weapons bays just add $$, weight, and MX issues. The deep-strike mentallity is what brought this all about. Somewhere in the Army brass, the idea came up that helicopters can and should make long-range strikes into enemy territory. This isn't and shouldn't be what helicopters are used for. That's the F-117 and B-2's job. Helo's are ment for very close airsupport to AO's where we've already got boots on the ground. When you try and send em past the lines you just end up with too many downed choppers and too many POWs and KIAs. There are of course a few exceptions: Pave-lows, Pave-Hawks, MH-60s, etc. But they aren't our main battle force and have a particular niche to fill.

[airjun]

Prediction: The Peurvian Air Force with its P-51mustangs will defeat our F-22s in a dog fight as our advance heat seeking missiles will not lock on to the low heat signature of its piston engines, Nor can we get a good shot off as the Raptor flys too fast for the pilot to aim.

[TheTokenGook]

What does a 500 MD look like? I'm admitingly a fixed wing guy. Another problem with this deep penetration attitude is the refueling problem. Either A, you put on external tanks, or B. you put on a huge ass refueling boom. Both of which would defeat the purpose of stealth. Not to mention the other ac that would have to do the refueling would light up radars too. With the Army pouring so much money into a single helicopter whose primary goal is just scouting, you can bet it's role would soon expand. As you can see with the AF adding "A" to the F-22 to make it the F/A-22 now.
BTW, Airjun, the F/A-22 is designed to carry 6 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s. Only the AIM-9s are heat seeking. As you can see with that loadout and loadouts on other ac including the F-15 and 16, the AIM-120 AMRAAM is pretty much the preferred missile to used in air to air engagements.

[TheTokenGook]

Forgot to add Airjun about your other comment. Check out this video I posted concerning the new AIM-9X.http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ The only unit as of now that is using it is the 19th FS, 3rd Wing at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. They use the F-15C in that squadron. One of it's sister squadrons, 12th FS, may also use it, I'm not sure. Basically, this little fucker turns on a dime. Only other missile I can think of that compares to it is the Israeli Python 4. With the helmet mounted sight and new radar system put in some F-15Cs, basically you can just eyeball the bogey and he's dead. Even if the dude is at an extreme angle from you.

[Sammy Sandbag]

What does a 500 MD look like? I'm admitingly a fixed wing guy.

http://www.airfliteok.com/images/copters/MD500-1.jpg

Formely a Hughes 500. The Army uses the older varient as an OH-6 and AH-6 (see Black Hawk Down)http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/mh-6_001.jpg


Another problem with this deep penetration attitude is the refueling problem. Either A, you put on external tanks, or B. you put on a huge ass refueling boom.

That's why I mentioned the Pave-lowe, Pave-Hawk, and MH-60 (also the MH-47 (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/military/rotorcraft/mh47e/images/mh47e-3b.jpg)) which come equipped for AAR. Deep penetration doesn't have to be 1000 miles remember. For helo operations, deep strike can only mean 100 miles or less. So a refueling boom isn't a necessity.

[TheTokenGook]

Oh duh!! Stupid me. I was more familiar with the AH-6. Never seen one of those in person, but my dad has and man are those bad boys fast as hell. Light weight, small, fast, cheap, easy to operate, yeah, this sounds a lot better than pouring a lot of money into a new stealth design for a scout helicopter. Israel has also used them successfully for a variety of missions.

[Kensei10]

AF anounced that it will be upgradeing the A-10 and keep it to 2030! I'll post it if I can find the story.

[TheTokenGook]

yeah, it's been said for a while now that the A-10 will be around for at least another 15 yrs (in AF terms that means 50) j/k of course. But they really are expecting another 15 yrs of life out of the current airframes. The past year or so, A-10s have been going to depot to go through the "Hog-up" program. Part of that program includes taking wings off older airframes (ones that are older in the Boneyard, but have less airtime) and placing them on the current active airframes.

[hoosier500]

yeah, it's been said for a while now that the A-10 will be around for at least another 15 yrs (in AF terms that means 50) j/k of course. But they really are expecting another 15 yrs of life out of the current airframes. The past year or so, A-10s have been going to depot to go through the "Hog-up" program. Part of that program includes taking wings off older airframes (ones that are older in the Boneyard, but have less airtime) and placing them on the current active airframes.

how big a "part of that program" and who the hell thinks this is a good idea after two space shuttle disasters?

[TheTokenGook]

not really sure about all the details, but I knwo that's a large part of it. I don't really see how this connects to the space shuttle disasters though. The airframes in the boneyard have been there for only about 10 yrs and are well preserved. Parts have been taken from these ac ever since they were first placed there. Not sure if this is part of the program, but I'm not sure if all the current A-10s have been updated with the GPS domes. Those have been in place for 2 yrs or so, and i'm not sure if every ac in inventory has them yet. I'm yet to see one from Pope AFB to have one, but I've seen many ANG units and Eielson AFB with them already one. Also, in Afghanistan A-10s first started to using Litening targeting pods.

[hoosier500]

I don't really see how this connects to the space shuttle disasters though. I saw this ?? coming. I am a LAZY typer.

Anyways -

disaster one - O rings. Didn't fail before in cold weather - BUT IT'S REALLY COLD THIS TIME - shut up, do the launch BOOM.

disaster two - foam hits ceramic tile. Foam has hit wings before - BUT IT REALLY HIT HARD THIS TIME - shut up, bring her down - BOOM

A-10 disaster looming - old wings fall off fairchild republic "thunderbolt II" - BUT THE OLD WINGS HAVE LESS HOURS - anyways it saved some money........

[hoosier500]

As I said, I am a lazy typer. I am also a horrific typr.

WRONG =


A-10 disaster looming - old wings fall off fairchild republic "thunderbolt II" - BUT THE OLD WINGS HAVE LESS HOURS - anyways it saved some money........

right = A-10 disaster looming - old fairchild republic "thunderbolt II" wings seem to have an unacceptable cohesion variant - BUT THE NEW/OLD WINGS HAVE LESS HOURS - BOOM! ....anyways it saved some money

[TheTokenGook]

right = A-10 disaster looming - old fairchild republic "thunderbolt II" wings seem to have an unacceptable cohesion variant - BUT THE NEW/OLD WINGS HAVE LESS HOURS - BOOM! ....anyways it saved some money
Ok, I"m not tracking on the "unacceptable cohesion variant" I"m aware of the previous shuttle accidets, but I don't see how that ties in with upgrading the A-10 fleet. Basically what they are doing at Depot is the same thing they do at an auto shop. Say you have a '67 Mustang with a bad engine. You replace that engine with a good '67 engine from another Mustang. It's just as old, but it has less mileage on it and is less likely to fail on you. You following me? About saving them money, I dont' have any numbers, but these upgrades are expensive. You're talking about replacing both sets of wings here. But what are your options? You can't remanufacture the parts, so you have to go to the boneyard where the parts are still good. Either that, or not replace the wings, and that's just not an option if you plan to keep them in service another 15 yrs.

[hoosier500]

Ok, I"m not tracking on the "unacceptable cohesion variant" The wings fall off.
I"m aware of the previous shuttle accidets, but I don't see how that ties in with upgrading the A-10 fleet. ...The shuttle enginners did not see how previous successes (NEAR MISSES) would not indicate a future failure.
You following me? -- sure, but this isn't a car traveling 100 mph 0-1 feet from the ground. the wing breaks on your Honda and your exhaust sounds funny. the wing breaks on your thunderbolt II and your chute better be packed.
About saving them money, I dont' have any numbers, but these upgrades are expensive. -- sure but it still costs less than new.

[TheTokenGook]

To think the wings will fall off of an A-10 is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with the wings that they are putting on. The only reason they were put in the boneyard in the first place is because of massive defense cuts. Another example then, imagine that engine I mentioned before was from a '67 Mustang that was perfectly preserved for the past 10 yrs. These airframes that are in the boneyard are from the fiscal year 78-probably 80. That means, most of these aircraft have anywhere from 10 to 14 yrs of air time on them. 14 at the most. Now, there are other types of ac in inventory that are a lot older than that. Some of the newest F-16s in inventory (from the Block 50 series) are that old. These wings are perfectly fine. Now about saving money again. It is impracticle to build new A-10 parts. Especially, as I said before when the parts in the boneyard are just as good. The last A-10 roled was from fiscal yr 82. No way in hell is the USAF going to order the remanufacturing of parts. That's like asking Delorean to make new parts for you old Delorean. Not only is the car no longer being produced, but the manufacturer is out of business. These wings are fine, and they are already being rotated into service.

[hoosier500]

To think the wings will fall off of an A-10 is ridiculous.This is my whole point! To think NASA would allow a tolerance for O-ring failures to kill to seven astronauts is ridiculous. To think it would happen a second time because of a piece of foam is preposterous. PS - both those things happened, despite the "it was a sound idea principle"

But hey - you Frankenstein all you want.

[hoosier500]

BECAUSE IT SAVES MONEY

[Sammy Sandbag]

BECAUSE IT SAVES MONEY

I think you need a dose of reality son. Comparing o-ring tolerances to A-10 wings is like apples and oranges. Parts coming out of the bone yard are not necessarily relics. Airlines on a regular basis will place A/C there when the economy is down and then bring them back out when things are booming. Post 9/11 those storage facilities became jam packed with airframes.

There is no such thing as zero-tolerance in engineering, and never will be. Get used to it. If not impossible, it is severely impractical to start up assembly lines to reproduce air craft parts. Especially when parts with only 10 years flying time on them exist. If the Military, NASA, and the Air Lines followed your advice Hoosier, they'd each be sharing a plane.

[TheTokenGook]

Thanks Sammy, that was a good response. Hoosier, you might want to check this out:
http://www.dm.af.mil/AMARC/
AMARC = Aircraft Maintainence and Regeneration Center
Very informative and you'll see just how often preserved ac are brought back inot service.

[hoosier500]

I know more about the boneyard than you are assuming I do. Which is fine and certainly valid based on my responses to this thread.

And yes I know the likelihood of a wing actually falling off is not statistically significant old vs new, or even as a failure event in general that would be reason enough to make a decision on the viability of the program.

But it is cost driving the process. That may make it an acceptable option but not the best. And if their is going to be a significant CAS contribution, their must something beyond going to the spare parts bin.

It is not zero tolerance engineering that was an issue in the O-ring failure. It was human factors driven mainly by the fact a contractor ain't gonna say no to the man with the checkbook. What I was getting at was not about the quality of the parts.

But that's a long and boring story and it seems to be getting unnecessarily testy in this topic so we can get to the final score. YOU WIN - I LOSE.

[Sammy Sandbag]

But it is cost driving the process. That may make it an acceptable option but not the best. And if their is going to be a significant CAS contribution, their must something beyond going to the spare parts bin.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. Cost will, unfortunately, always drive decision making when it concerns our military's equipment. There are other issues too, namely congressional fast tracking of programs that benifit the already rich more than they do the soldier or airmen who's using the product.


But that's a long and boring story and it seems to be getting unnecessarily testy in this topic so we can get to the final score. YOU WIN - I LOSE.

That's not what we're about here, or at least I'm not. Maybe it seemed to become testy, but I assure you it was more a problem of misunderstanding. It's one of the drawbacks of online discussions. We all get to learn something here, so I try not to make it a debate.