WT Forums

A-10C could be soon with the look of things. The PE programs should change the A-10A to A-10C.
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2004/AirForce/0207131F.pdf

Ugly but Well Hung

Good to see they have plans to continue with work on the Hog...

"The more you sweat in peacetime, the less you bleed in war."

Dont you mean the "A-10B"?

"Insert trite message here"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Dont you mean the "A-10B"?

"Insert trite message here"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The A-10B was the only two seater so yes -IF- we get the Ok for a model-roll it will be the C model -BUT- that is far from a done deal.... Can you say A-10A-block2?

Ugly but well hung!
http://www.warthogpen.com

LOL, switiching to 'block' instead of a new letter seems to have fooled the hell out of congress.

If they still went by the old designation systems the F-16 would be up to about F-16P by now, lol.

Congress would never go for that, but they seem fine with an F-16C/60.

Go figure...

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
LOL, switiching to 'block' instead of a new letter seems to have fooled the hell out of congress.

If they still went by the old designation systems the F-16 would be up to about F-16P by now, lol.

Congress would never go for that, but they seem fine with an F-16C/60.

Go figure...

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Ugly but well hung!
http://www.warthogpen.com

Its been my understanding that the 2 seater was the NAW/A-10A and not a B model. If I am wrong is there something I can see in writing that says this? (I do have access to A-10 TO's)

"Insert trite message here"

it seems interestign that in the entire plan there is no mention of a new engine. you would think that engine design has improved in the last 20 years. you would also think that it is possible for an engine to be exactly the same size with exactly the same fuel consumption but with greater power. Of course the bypass ratio would have to be obtained as the engine only needs a great deal of thrust at low speed. So a low bypass turbofan engine would be impracticle....

I wonder, I wonder.... LOL
Ivan

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Its been my understanding that the 2 seater was the NAW/A-10A and not a B model. If I am wrong is there something I can see in writing that says this? (I do have access to A-10 TO's)

"Insert trite message here"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

http://www.warthogpen.com/twoseat.html

Ugly but well hung!
http://www.warthogpen.com

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
it seems interestign that in the entire plan there is no mention of a new engine. you would think that engine design has improved in the last 20 years. you would also think that it is possible for an engine to be exactly the same size with exactly the same fuel consumption but with greater power. Of course the bypass ratio would have to be obtained as the engine only needs a great deal of thrust at low speed. So a low bypass turbofan engine would be impracticle....

I wonder, I wonder.... LOL
Ivan


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This subject has been talked about in meeetings, at the bar after work and, in backrooms with the door locked. Until PE is installed, which a lot belive MUST be intalled for the airframe to stay in the inventory, and the SLEP program is finnished there will be no new engines.

There is also the small fact(s) that the basic A-10 requirements doc doesn't show the A-10 needs engines and the TF-34 is one of, if not the, most supportable engines in the AF inventory.

Sorry ivanthegreat if you are "in the know" on this subject but until the above is answered/adressed (basic requirements and throwing a highly supporable engine away) and the two programs (PE/SLEP) are finnished I just don't see new engines coming.


Ugly but well hung!
http://www.warthogpen.com

F&^&**G AWSOME!!!!

If this thing happens, I'll be as happy as a pig in.. well, a Hawg in the mud!

HEHE!! Although my baby will end up in AMARC if they do. Oh well. As long as I get a brand new "Baby Hawg", I'll be happy.

"If all the commercials say: 'An Army of One', why am I surrounded by the fools!?"

_________________
3 Branches down... 2 to go!
Put on your tinfoil hats, the black choppers are coming, and I'm calling them in.
Former DCC OA-10A T/N 80-278

Very interesting reading Mr Dice, but no where in the text you wrote or in the Faichild text was the "A-10B" ever mentioned, they continually called it the NAW/A-10.

"Insert trite message here"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Very interesting reading Mr Dice, but no where in the text you wrote or in the Faichild text was the "A-10B" ever mentioned, they continually called it the NAW/A-10.

"Insert trite message here"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


DOH!

General pain in the ass has Spoken!

"The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters."
-Genghis Khan

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

DOH!

General pain in the ass has Spoken!

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yea, I just remembered who I was answering...will not make the same mistake twice! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Ugly but well hung!
http://www.warthogpen.com

YOU THINK SOMEONE STARTED TO FIGURE OUT THAT STEALTH AND SPEED FROM 15,000 FT DONT HELP THE GRUNT CRAWLING 2" ABOVE THE GROUND UNDER FIRE?

I READ ABOUT THE F-22,SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD SO FAR,BUT IT JUST CANT DO AWAY WITH A AIRCRAFT DESIGNED FOR CAS.
EVEN IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A NEXT GEN PLANE THEY NEED TO MAKE IT CAS DEDICATED

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

A10Stress had some great post about the engine upgrades for the A10 and all the engineering that goes into it. Definetly opened my eyes to alot of things a crew chief doesnt deal with. I think all his posts git deleted when he left.


By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

I have heard it said that PE will change the A-10 signifigantly enough to warrent a change in the designation since not all the gaurd units will buy PE. Thats where the A-10C will come from. As far as the 2-seat being the B-model I can't say with any certainty.

I've talk of new engines, or rather upgrading the current engines to be cheaper and made up of all civilian spec parts to make them even more maintainable but I think most of the engine change talk is here saya nd rumor.

Ugly but Well Hung

Dice,
Let me look around. Seems like I've got some old Fairchild Info when they were trying to sell the two seater. This debate over B model or NAWs has been beat up before.
Cheers
db

Being responsible means sometimes pissing people off.
Gen Colin Powell ret

From the USAF Museum's A-10 page...

"73-1664 later converted to the A-10B Night/All Weather (N/AW) two place A-10"

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research ... /a6-19.htm

There is one thing which may confuse some (or give reason to debate) in the listing of number of aircraft built. It lists 1 A-10 NAWs and 0 YA-10Bs. The reason for this is the NAWs was both the proto-type for a NAWs aircraft and a trainer (all in one airframe) so they didn't list it in both cat.


Ugly but well hung!
http://www.warthogpen.com



Edited by - Dice on Nov 20 2003 6:22 PM

I have a copy of Fairchild's Night Attack Weapons System Planning Summary. It is not dated but the planning dates in the book have date time lines that starting in 1983 so I'd say the book was developed around 80 or 81.
In this Summary the two seat version is referred to as both a NAWS and an A-10B. The reason A-10B is correct is that NAWS was not exclusive to the 2 seater. In the Summary, there were also plans for a single seat version. They were referred as SSNA (Single Seat Night Attack) and the A-10B as TSNA (Two Seat Night Attack).
THe SSNA would have basically the same thing as the two seater.
Multimode radar, FLIR, Laser Range Finder, 2 MFDs, Electonic Moving Map, etc.
This book is 38 pages long with fold outs.

I also have a Fairchild briefing for BG J.R. Brill,(who was the A-10 System Program Director at the time), dated September 9, 1977.
It is a presentation on Fairchilds plan for the 2 seat evaluator.
The presentation never mentions the "A-10B" directly, BUT, it does outline configuration control.
As you know, all "Fairchild" part numbers for the A-10A start with "160", that is the project code for the A-10A.
The project code for the two seater was to be "161" That makes it a different airplane.
Hope I've helped muddy the water!!
Cheers
Guys & Gals



Being responsible means sometimes pissing people off.
Gen Colin Powell ret

Thx for the clarification Dice. I know that when LANTIRN was in competition for Targeting and NAV pod back then the A-10 was one o the selling points. Was the NAW A-10 going to be that A-10 variant to carry it. Thus the reson LANIRN took this long to reach the A-10

Ugly but Well Hung

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Thx for the clarification Dice. I know that when LANTIRN was in competition for Targeting and NAV pod back then the A-10 was one o the selling points. Was the NAW A-10 going to be that A-10 variant to carry it. Thus the reson LANIRN took this long to reach the A-10

Ugly but Well Hung
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

422, I don't know if I understand your question(s) or not but, the NAWs aircraft and the systems it carried IE radar and FLIR pods...

<img src="http://www.warthogpen.com/naws_files/hogpod1.jpg" border=0>

were a "proof of concept" and not the finnished design. I really don't know what the plans were for the pods it would carry in the finnal design and I don't think that was ever defined down to the pod level.

No, this is not why it's taken so long for the A-10 to get a "pod" (whatever the pod may have been) but a LOT of different factors including but not limited to, the basic A-10 design, the political climate, and other airframe bids for the same equipment.

Don't know if I answered your questions or not but that's the best I can do.


Ugly but well hung!
http://www.warthogpen.com

I was just mentioning the fact that the A-10 was the primary selling piont when LANTIRN was introduced. It was going to be adapted to the A-10 back then though it never came to any fruition, instead it went to the F-15E and then later to the F-16. LANTIRN was built with the A-10 in mind but eneded up being sold as the F-15/16 assets we see today/ I have to some pics somewhere of flight testing from around the Gulf War on the A-10, I'll look around for it.

Now with PE just on the horizion and LITENING out on jets its come back to the A-10. Just sees a shame that its taken this long. My question was wheather or not the A-10B (NAW) was there to solve the Targeting pod delima of Pilots spending all there time looking at the targeting display instead of flying. Thats how the F-15E came about with 2 seats. My other question would be if LITENING will be the final version of Pods on the A-10 or would SNIPER eventually replace it being cheaper better and easier to maintain? Or would LITENING stay on the A-10 as left overs from other airframes that bought LITENING and then upgraded to SNIPER leaving the USAF with surplus LITENING's?

Ugly but Well Hung

On another note where is PAVE PENNY going with all this? Doesn't seem to be much se for it yet form everything I've seen its staying on the jet. With LITENING on PENNY just a hood orniment.

When we get all the teething problems worked out of IFFCC we will be able to start thinking that maybe PE will actually make it to the A10 community and that it wasnt actually a pipedream. Although it is still going to be interesting to see how the BRAC affects all our juicy new toys.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !