WT Forums

IFFCC still has few minor problems, most are with the TO's and Pilot learning curve though and not with the current software/hardware. IFFCC's a done deal so PE will become a reality very soon HAWG166.

422, I was not aware the LANTIRN pod was built with the A-10 in mind, do you have anything (paper wise) on this? As far as the two seater coming from to much "heads down" time in the cockpit I don't think so (just my opinion) because it' concept came in 1978 (built in 1979) only three years after the first production aircraft rolled of the line....to soon IMHO.

As far as which pod we will get and how many that has not been nailed down yet, could be litening AT, Litening ER, Sniper, or a combo of these.

The Pave Penny will stay around as long as it's supporable because it cost little to keep and fly and does add a capibility to the aircraft so, why remove it.



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

Dice, I can get some paper to back the LANTIRN story but thx for the timeline clarification. I see there was no way for LANTIRN and the A-10B to be related given the timeline. As a former LANTIRN/PENNY troop I know LANTIRN it its original form was considered for the A-10.

As far as Pave Penny though what's the use of keeping it when LITENING comes to the aircraft. All I see in my future with PAVE PENNY then it reminding the pilots to turn the damn thing on knowing full well that it will never be used while a LITENING pod is hung.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Dice, I can get some paper to back the LANTIRN story but thx for the timeline clarification. I see there was no way for LANTIRN and the A-10B to be related given the timeline. As a former LANTIRN/PENNY troop I know LANTIRN it its original form was considered for the A-10.

As far as Pave Penny though what's the use of keeping it when LITENING comes to the aircraft. All I see in my future with PAVE PENNY then it reminding the pilots to turn the damn thing on knowing full well that it will never be used while a LITENING pod is hung.


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

I would love to see something on the LANTIRN pod and the A-10. I guess we would need a pilot to weight-in on this because all I known is it was desided to keep it.

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

I'll look around today and see if I can find some docs on the subject for ya dice. Is your posted e-mail best to contact you? If not email me with one better.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I'll look around today and see if I can find some docs on the subject for ya dice. Is your posted e-mail best to contact you? If not email me with one better.


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

use this one 422..

phatom2@aol.com

and thanks!

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

The F16 Block 30-40 was the developer of the Lightning system. It was also proposed for the A10.

The Falcons have been flying with Lightning for over 18 years.

The F15E was a mid eighties program that was still in The First Squadsron training Workups and Certifications during WWGulF1. They did not have Lightning Pods in Inventory for the units and were not certified to use them. The 388th FW (Block 40 F16C) handed over their lantirns for the 2 F15E Squadrons. to use in WWGUlf1. No F16's used the Lantirn in wwGulf1. becasue of this reason and the Theater planning assignments for the F16.

The premise you speak of requiring a backseater to operate the pod has nothing to do with the Pod. It all has to do with the Mission Profile. "Deep Strike" In this Scenario, the pilot needs to have Eyes out negate Ground and Surface Threats , while the Backseater is "Mapping the Battle Space" Finding the Correct targets etc, then provideing the Steer data for the Front seater to ingress and deploy.

The lantirn system alone does not require 2 people. It is very easy and quick to use in the F16 and other aircraft. The aircraft are set up to "Slave" to radar and other posit handoff devices.


With lightning, it is a 100 times better than the lantirn setup



"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> The Falcons have been flying with Lightning for over 18 years.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is incorrect I am sorry to say. The F-16 could not have been flying LITENING or any other form of ATP for 18 years due to the fact that LITENING is not 18 years old. LITENING came about in its current form only a few years ago. The ATP competition wasn't and still isn't finished for the USAF. The gaurd and res components fielded LITENING on A-10's, F-16's, and F-15's after the fesability study was done in 1998. Other pods are still being tested such as the SNIPER, BDA LANTIRN pod and Advanced Targeting pod upgrade to extend the life of current LANTIRN systems the Air Force bought.

The only US aircraft the fielded LITENING before the late nineties was the NAVY and this was done by contract on a limited number of aircraft for F-14's. The NAVY leased LANTRIN so there was no buy-in by that department. That is what allowed them to be ahead of the ball game in LITENING. Prior to that the only forces to field any sort of ATP was Israel since they built the thing.

I don't know where the 18 year mark came from but LANTIRN has bearly been on the F-16 that long.

Now to the other issue you mentioned.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The premise you speak of requiring a backseater to operate the pod has nothing to do with the Pod. It all has to do with the Mission Profile. "Deep Strike" In this Scenario, the pilot needs to have Eyes out negate Ground and Surface Threats , while the Backseater is "Mapping the Battle Space" Finding the Correct targets etc, then provideing the Steer data for the Front seater to ingress and deploy.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
If you have read ANY of the PDR's for LANTRIN you would know that the time spent using the Target Pod was of great concern to pilots of F-15's and F-16's early in the program. The F-16's especially. To say that heads down time is not impotant while flying an aircraft near Mach speed is ludicrious to say the least. And your right the LANTIRN system does not take two people to operate. Its takes one. I never said any different. The whole premise of the LANTIRN system is for the Nav pod to effectively "fly" the aircraft while the pilot spends valuable "heads down time" to aquire, track, and engage targets using the Target pod. I have heard it said that during flight testing before the snap look risley prisms where added to the Nave pods FLIR that flying the aircraft was like flying through a soda straw. The PDR for that nearly killed the NAV pod altogether.
As for the A-10 it would require similar modification to what the F-16 got to make LANTIRN, LITENING, or any other targeting or nav setup happen since it has no second crew member to split duties with. I was comenting in other posts that the A-10 two seater would be a great idea for a LANTIRN type set-up similar to the F-15E and if any testing had been done to that effect. The paper that Dice summited in this thread shows that concept was there in the the form of pods from the PAVE-TAC era.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> With lightning, it is a 100 times better than the lantirn setup<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You need to also realize that the "LANTIRN" system is not changing with the addition of LITENING. The LITENING pod is mearly replacing the Targeting AAQ-14 pod. The system as a whole does not change it only adds to the cabaility of the targetting pod. Such as increase Laser range and additional firing capability from the laser sorce, addition of TV to FLIR, and better FLIR with longer range and auto centrating functions. The whole Targeting pod is designed more around mantainabililty then it is about being "100 times better" for the pilot. Its 2 level as opposed to LANTIRN's 3 level maintanence requirements.

I hope this clears up some the misconceptions of LITENING.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The F16 Block 30-40 was the developer of the Lightning system. It was also proposed for the A10.

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

My only mistake was the Lightning for lantirn. I am very familiar with their use, as I have flown them both. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

"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

OK, so I am resurrecting an old topic, but did we ever acertain if LANTIRN was initally built with the A-10 in mind? I found this...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>LANT024 -- A/OA-10 PRECISION ATTACK

DESCRIPTION: Program will provide a targeting pod for the A/OA-10. The pod will be similar to the LANTIRN system with improvements in capability and supportability. Cost estimate for system includes incorporation of Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensor. System will replace antiquated Pave Penny system which is a simple laser spot seeker. This is a new capability for the aircraft.

JUSTIFICATION: Current Pave Penny laser spot seeker is becoming unreliable and unsupportable. Current employment ranges for the primary ordnance of the A-10, the GAU-8 30mm Gatling gun and the AGM-65 Maverick missiles, are beyond the range of the Pave Penny system. This program will increase acquisition and targeting ranges beyond ordnance employment ranges resulting in a significant increase in standoff capability and combat survivability. This system provides a new capability in long distance target detection, acquisition, and weapons employment increasing combat effectiveness. System will increase combat capability through improved target acquisition, improved weapon delivery accuracy, precise coordinate generation, increased stand-off range, and aid in the recovery of downed airman in the Search and Rescue (SAR) mission. System will fully support the integration of smart weapons on the platform.

PROGRAM ELEMENT:

ISSUES: Program dependent on LASTE computer upgraded program and multi-functional display (MFD) program embedded into data link solution (Situational Awareness Data Link or LINK-16). MFD solution would be incorporated into this program if data link solution is delayed and will require a cost adjustment.

REFERENCES:

MNS Number and Title: All Weather Target ORD Number and Title: Low Altitude Navigation

Acquisition Systems. TAF 315-75 and Targeting Infrared Night (LANTIRN).

TAF 302-81-I/II/III-A

1067 Number and Title: Development Plan Date & Title: Air To Surface Development Plan, 30 Sep 96

Current CINC IPL: YES

ACC PEM Name: Maj G. Smith, DRPF, 4-5279 PEM Backup: Maj J. Pearsall, DRPF, 4-5279

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

Dice, does that answer your question??

Cheers! M2

Hi im new here

and i fond this on the web
the web site is

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.c ... /aircraft/

it is 7 stories down


Tuesday, 23 November 2004
Warthogs get color screens & hot joysticks

The U.S. Air Force is beginning it’s A-10 upgrade, that will convert most of the current A-10A aircraft to A-10Cs (the A-10B was a two seat version produced in small quantities). Most of the changes will not be visible, and many will be in the pit. The pilots will now have color LCDs, new instruments and a new joystick with enough buttons on it to allow the pilot to control just about everything without having to fiddle with any other controls. This is called HOTAS (Hands-On Throttle And Stick). The A-10C will be able to use JDAM (GPS guided) smart bombs, as well as many current, and future, missiles. This makes the A-10 even more versatile.

The Air Force has been trying to dump the A-10 for some two decades now. But the army combat troops like it, as do the air force pilots who fly it and, most importantly, so does the media. The A-10C will be the most versatile combat warplane the air force operates. The A-10 is the only warplane that can get down low (the better to figure what is really going on), and deliver effective firepower (via the 30mm automatic cannon). The A-10C will also be able to drop smart bombs from higher altitudes, making it able to deal with just about any combat support mission that comes up. In addition, the A-10 is designed to operate from crude airbase facilities and, in general, take a lot of punishment and keep going.


A-10C Thunderbolt IIs have Night Vision Imaging Systems (NVIS), a completely modern, digital optical, single-seat pit forward of the wings and a large armored bubble canopy which provides the pilot with all-around vision. The pilot is encircled by an upgraded "bath tub" made up of a ceramic/titanium armor much stronger and offering more protection than the original titanium armor.

Looks like those who recognize the FA-22 can never be as effective in CAS as the A-10 have won the day


The A is for "Attack." I'd say the Army and Marines should have the Warthog under their direct control, but the AF has this thing about wanting a monopoly on fixed-wing aircraft, with only a few exceptions
<i></i>

All I can say on the subjet is I have never seen any documentation suggesting the LATERN pod was ever looked at to be placed on the A-10 and, the A-10s current power supply could not handel the load.

Ugly But Well Hung

There are more than a few bugs with the power supply especially with the new computers and the Litening II Pod. I dont know what difference there would needs be if the A10 had a LANTRN Pod instead of a Litening II Pod but I cant imagine it being much more or less. Hey KUNGFU you out there ? Give us a wag ifin you are.

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

_________________
YGBSM !

Most of your power supply problems Reguarding LITENING pods on the A-10 to date heve been from the AIM box configuration (T-2 or T-1 mods). 2+ proved that. As far as the A-10 supporting the power consumption of a LANTIRN pod is another story, it might not, I don't really know.

It was during the ATP competition that I learned of the LANTIRN Targeting pod being proposed to the A-10 as well as the other airframes. I remember reading some dated materials from LANTIRN folks but can't seem to find this stuff now. The people in the Sensor shop around here have turned over most of their personel and much has been lost.

The biggest power issue I have seen with the LITENING pod is during extreme cold weather conditions, when the Wired Rear Section heater beds consume more aircraft 115VAC that the pod converts into 28 VDC. I have occasionally experienced some brown out type conditions while using the APU or AGE when the ECM pod is timing in. I would have to disagree that the AIM configuration causes power problems. I have had reliability issues with AIMS over the last two years, not power problems. Suite 2+ eliminates the AIM and offers better HOTAS control and IFFCC interface. This would be a better interum solution for Active Duty if they had more pods. I doubt ACC will ever have the funds to field Suite 2+. LANTIRN is a legacy sensor system that req's a 3 level maintenance concept that is not flightline friendly. The pod is limited to 20 minutes of ground operation due to it's reliance on Ram air for it's coolant all fluid. The integration of LANTIRN on today's A-10 would be a hand me down pod from the F-16CG and F-15E community after they received the SNIPER pods that won the ATP competition. I have also heard that the NAVY has offered the USAF it's LANTIRN pods as the F-14 draws down. Just my 2 cents!
Kungfu

Yeah what he said.......all of it.

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

_________________
YGBSM !

My unreliable recollections:

The LANTIRN system was promoted with the potential to be used on the A-10, but I don't believe it was ever seriously considered because it was so expensive. I believe some preliminary installation studies were done at Fairchild, but no real engineering. The cost thing prompted Fairchild to propose their own "poor man's" night attack system which was cobbled together on the NAW prototype. It was not intended to use pods on any production aircraft. Rather, production sensors were to be installed in the nose of the gear pods and on the Pave Penny pylon (millimeter wave radar, imaging infrared and low light level TV). Sometimes I hear the NAW prototype called the YA-10B. Maybe it was so designated after the fact. We actually did real engineering with released drawings on something we called the A-10B but it was sold as a combat ready trainer (CRT). It had no unique sensors. It had a single clamshell canopy over the two seats, not two side opening canopies like the NAW (aeromedical was unhappy with the escape performance of the "thru the canopy" NAW system). Everyone also new that this variant was a foot in the door for development of a future night attack version. As far as I know, the Congress nixed the A-10B before any parts were made. There was a lot of research effort done on the single seat night attack (SSNA) after the USAF declined the NAW version. They used the NAW prototype to do this research with a safety pilot in the back seat. In the end I think all the research was used to justify the position that the single seat F-16 could do the job with LANTIRN. Refering to Professor Finkle's reprinted article saying that the A-10B "was a two seat A-10 produced in small quantities". Well, if you consider zero a small quantity, OK.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

LOCKHEED TO TAKE WARTHOG TO NEW HEIGHTS: Lockheed Martin Systems Integration in Owego showed the DoD on Tuesday what it could do with $300M. The company and its partners are giving a warplane commonly known as the Warthog its most significant technological upgrade since the aircraft's inception some 30 years ago. The U.S. Air Force unveiled the new A-10 during a ceremony for military and industry officials Tuesday at Eglin AFB. "We are moving the A-10 into the 21st century with the capability to deliver the latest precision-guided weapons to the battlefield in the global war on terror," Col. Robert Nolan said. The A-10 Thunderbolt has seen several smaller-scale improvements since it first came off the production line in 1972, said Roger Il Grande, A-10 program manager for Lockheed in Owego. But it was due for a major upgrade. The $300M program will keep the Warthog viable until 2028, said Scott Greene, acting GM of Lockheed's Aerospace Solutions unit. (Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin)



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????