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.

 

Rebuilding the A-10

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   


May 6, 2004: The US Air Force has unwrapped its plans to upgrade the A-10's targeting capability under the Precision Engagement Program. It is still undecided what type of structural work is needed to extend the service life of A-10s to 28,000 hours, so it can keep flying until 2028. The A-10 was originally intended to have a service life of 8,000 hours. Pilots have always wanted more powerful engines, but now more than ever since they are now operating at higher altitudes than originally designed due to doctrinal changes to avoid low-altitude air defense weapons and flight time over in the mountains of Afghanistan. Compounding matters is that the numbers of other US combat aircraft types in the Middle East have been decreasing while the use of the A-10s has increased with greater demands for close air support over the course of the past six months.

Upgrades include new multifunctional cockpit displays, situational awareness data links, digital stores management, the 1760 databus, helmet-mounted sighting system, and two targeting pods, the Litening AT and Sniper XR, plus new engine pylons. Both pods provide laser spot tracker, FLIR, CCD-TV, and laser target designation capability. Once installation is complete, the A-10 will be able to deliver JDAM bombs, Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser, and self-designate for laser-guided bombs. Pod adoption is also expected to help avoid fratricide incidents through the use of better day and IR sensors; A-10 pilots have had to ID targets with binoculars and NVGs.

One new weapon that may complement the rebuilt Warthog is a rebuilt Maverick missile. The Air Force plans to evaluate a lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) version of Maverick in early 2005. LOAL Maverick will incorporate a GPS receiver and a digital datalink so the missile can be fired at GPS-coordinates without a visual lock on a target. Once launched, pilots would be able to update and refine the missile's aim point through a video feed sent back on the datalink. The upgrade would allow the Maverick to be used at ranges of up to 35 kilometers; current versions max out at 10 kilometers. Upgrades would cost between $60-$70,000 for each missile, plus a one-time modification of the launcher of around $40-50,000. Raytheon has also proposed a version of Maverick with a booster-strapon that would increase launch range between 130-160 kilometers. Of course LOAL Maverick also gives the missile a new lease on life since the baseline Maverick is slated to be replaced by the tri-service Common Missile with a 16 kilometer range. The A-10 is a major user of the Maverick


From www.strategypage.com...

This is good news




posted on May, 6 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Good news indeed. You can find an existing thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Part of extending the airframe life from 8000 to 28000 hours may simply involve lowering the load limits. Regular inspection and maintenance should accomodate for some increased life. It's not as if the original wings were designed to fall off at precisely 8001 hours.

In addition to being a fantastic bombtruck and flying cannon, the A-10 is a great forward air control (FAC) aircraft. There is an advantage to having a live pilot in the air that you just don't get with UAVs. Modern A-10s can loiter over an area keeping a constant eyeball on things, much like the Army's helicopters.

As cool as the F-35/JSF is, it's in a completely different ballpark. Fast-movers like that have a hard time keeping staying in one place and keeping an eye on things happening on the ground.

Much of the US's modern military strategy involves "low intensity" fighting, where they are not going up against an equally armed superpower. There will always be a place for simple and reliable aircraft like the A-10, C-130 gunship, etc. to fly counter insurgency (COIN) or act as forward observers. The tech upgrade for the A-10 seems to fill the gap until UAVs begin to take over the role.



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   
i got a link from an A10 fan mate of mine and he says that this is the A12 is this true cause i think it looks like the black manta
A12
i know this project got scrapped but is this real or flawed



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
That is what is was going to look like.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Its amazing that in 1990 before GWI, the Air Force Brass were ready to scrap the plane. Replacing the engines will give it more range, more power, more loiter time, better fuel burn etc. If they can work in a integrated night vision system into it, you would have an all weather FAS aircraft of awesum capacity. Even if you reduced the payload to increase life the plane has such a huge capacity (16,000 lbs) even taking that down to say 12,000 would still leave it well armed.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
the A-12 was supposed to be a navy reconnaissance plane it was never meant to be a air to ground support.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
A10 improvements: Thats good to hear, it will make UK tank drivers and UK-BBC news reporters in UN marked cars feel a little safer...





posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the A-12 was supposed to be a navy reconnaissance plane it was never meant to be a air to ground support.



Uh no it wasnt, it was a A-6 and F-18 replecement....Read up on it a bit.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the A-12 was supposed to be a navy reconnaissance plane it was never meant to be a air to ground support.


Then why did they bother putting bomb bays on it?

It was meant to provide the carriers with a low observablity aircraft to carry out precsion tactical and strategic strikes.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the A-12 was supposed to be a navy reconnaissance plane it was never meant to be a air to ground support.


Then why did they bother putting bomb bays on it?

It was meant to provide the carriers with a low observablity aircraft to carry out precsion tactical and strategic strikes.


No its intent was to provide an stealth all weather strike replacement for the A-6 and the F-7/F-8 strike aircraft.
See the following Link
www.fas.org...



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
No its intent was to provide an stealth all weather strike replacement for the A-6 and the F-7/F-8 strike aircraft.
See the following Link


No, they were never intended to replace the A-7/F-8. That was the job of the F/A-18 Hornet.

The A-12 was designed to replace the A-6 family, which conducts tactical and strategic strikes. I did not know I had to point out that it was all weather, I assumed people here already knew that.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join