It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A-10 Fire Tanker

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The FireHogTM team proposes converting retired Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II attack jets into the Next Generation of Airtankers. The conversion involves demilitarizing the military jets, adding an infrared sensor package (the white ball under the nose), a retardant discharge system (the belly tank and pipe) and an aerial retardant reloading system (the probe on the left side of the nose).

www.firehogs.com...




M6D

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
the millitary still needs its A-10's thanks.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
the millitary still needs its A-10's thanks.


Many have been retired.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
They would probably make a great fire tanker since they can carry a heavy payload, they fly low and slow and are maneuverable.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Not to mention they can probably hit a few trees and would still keep on flying. I think they are perfect for the role.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I think they can afford a few A-10s.







[edit on 11-7-2005 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Buying them wont be difficult or expensive but getting them to fly again and making sure they are air worthy is another story. More of those A-10’s are empty shells with most of the electronic parts an engines missing so refitting them will cost more than just a few $$$. So it all depends on the budged and the Cost Vs. Effectiveness of the program.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Actually they're perfect. Most of the electronics removed were fire control/weapons stuff. The gun is probably removed as well. It would be easier to refit those than newer ones.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
They have people ready to refit the A-10's and already have a tank designed to carry 1500 gallons of retardent.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Well although we still need A-10's for warfare duty, we may as well put the old retired models to use. They are perfect. Excellent payload, combined with excellent flying abilities at low speeds and altitudes. Plus they're durable as hell which means they'll take a few accidents to put them out of action, making them very cost effective.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Unmanned




posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Unmanned



Wow - that image is soo damn cool. Dunno why though. A10 being my favourite plane of all time and the concept of unmanning it would be and excellant idea due to the dangers the pilots encounter.

PS. Anyone have that digital version of the A10 flight manual that used to be on a10.org? They had to take it down or something and I only had the wits to download the schematic page



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
The unmanned A-10 is pretty cool but somethings with that kind of firepower in its cannon alone being unmanned is a little unnerving



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Just show me the dotted line and give me a flight suit!



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Seems like we may getting off the main subject.

The A-10 Tanker is also going to be designed to have an inflight refilling capability.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
A-10 Fire Tanker

Seems like we may getting off the main subject.

The A-10 Tanker is also going to be designed to have an inflight refilling capability.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
That picture... Are you sure about it... That is propably a model of somekind...?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
And they say my idea of using high time C-17 airframes to replace the AC-130 is a waste of good airframes. I wonder what they are going to be putting in the nose to replace the gun. Removal of the gun is going to do wonders for the center of gravity of that plane. I wonder how much DU they are going to have to strap in there. I'd like to reccommend the S-3 Vikings that the Navy is retiring for this job. Remove the sonobuoy tubes and finally get to use that bomb bay for something besides smuggling beer on board ship. Will the A-10 be able to carry enough retardent to do any good? What are they going to use for a retardent tanker?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
one of the problems with using bigger planes is they have a hard time manuvering around mountains and hilly area were a lot of wildfires are. WIth a terrain follwoing Radar in the A-10 and NoE system that wouldn'e be a problem. Especailly with the Loiter time, and manuverbility.

15,000 lbs of fire retardant (Max external payload) is quite a lot and is about half of what a P2V airtanker can carry.

It is really just a matter how cheap the state can get them and convert them to firefighting



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Interesting concept... what do you think they'll do about the problem with the foremost engine - airframe bulkhead cracks? Won't the airframe of such a beasty be even more stressed than the original Warhog? The air drop precision would be good. A problem with thermal induced lift might be evident it has fairly large wings with a rather smallish root at the fuselage.
Cool concept tho'.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join