Should The Navy/Marines Begin A-10 Carrier Operations?

[ROMOSAPIEN9]

The name of the game in the air has always been "Air Superiority." You get that, and you control the skies and somewhat the battlefield. But in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we have air superiority locked up. We need to more aggressively pursue ground superiority IMO.

I think if we could outfit a few squadrons of A-10's for carrier operations we could end the ground war much faster. The A-10 is renowned to be the weapon that the insurgents fear the most, and the weapon in which our ground forces seem to hold in highest regard. It's like a winged angel to our guys, and wings of death to the enemy.

Here's a quick highlight video for the uninitiated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINgqs0_nh8





Albeit a 30 year old weapons platform, due to its distinguished service in Desert Storm and beyond, it continues to get all the latest and most modern software and hardware updates. It will be flying long into the new millenium.


The big problem with this right off the bat is the fact that the Navy or Marines does not currently operate A-10's. The Air Force solely operates them and for some stupid reason the armed forces can be very proprietary when it comes to cross pollination of air craft and other equipment.

Also, the A-10's design would have to be modified in such a way that its wings could be folded for carrier operations storage.


The Marines have specific carriers in which they operate only Harriers. Why not have a couple A-10 dedicated carriers. Or better yet, why not have at least one Marine A-10 squadron on each carrier.

That's just something that has been gnawing at me a while. Thought I'd get it off my chest.

 

[ROMOSAPIEN9]

P.S. If you think I'm off my rocker, feel free to say so. I'm a big boy.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I was thinking that when I was serving, the Army had some A-10s. We would go on field exercises and we would see them flying over. However I also think that Chad Hennings flew A-10s and he was in the ** so who knows.

 

[Yeagermeister]

The first time I saw A-10 I thought they were remote controlled toys. :laugh2:

 

[Tovya]

I wonder if the dynamics of the catapult would work very well with the weight distribution of the A-10. I always understood them to be nose (because of the heavy armor) and tail heavy (engines), so it might launch a little awkwardly.

I might be completely off base... but then again it might just be because the thought of one launching off of a carrier is just so hard to imagine.

 

[Dallas]

I wonder if the dynamics of the catapult would work very well with the weight distribution of the A-10. I always understood them to be nose (because of the heavy armor) and tail heavy (engines), so it might launch a little awkwardly.

I might be completely off base... but then again it might just be because the thought of one launching off of a carrier is just so hard to imagine.

That is the issue.

Getting an A-10 to operate from a carrier. Something it was never designed to do.

I am not even sure you could. The stress the cat puts on the a-frame is significant. The hardening points on a F-18 are put there for a reason.

I suppose if you redo things on the A-10 it could work. It certainly could not carry the weapons platform that it does now though. It would have to carry much more fuel for carrier based than land based.

The burn off the carrier is enormous.

 

[ROMOSAPIEN9]

All good points.

I can see the difficulty of launching one off a carrier. The front tire assembly is already offset due to the mighty Avenger Cannon

That whole assembly would have to be re-fitted with stronger composites.

Plus the a-frame would probably have to be a big arse titanium deal like the F-14.

 

[Wolfpack]

The old Navy version of the A-10 was the A-6 (or even old the Skyraider).

Both were bomb trucks and I think could carry cannon pods if you wanted. Too bad they only have short legged F-18s in the fleet now.

 

[Kendo]

I'm sure we have plenty of airfield operations over there so I don't know that it would have to be carrier based......but I do love me some A-10 I lived in Tucson for about 8 years and would see them flying around all the time. Sweet planes.

 

[Tovya]

Yeah around here we mostly see B-52s for short stopovers, and our reserve F-18 squadrons.

I think the last time I saw a warthog in person was at an airshow about 20 years ago... always had a little love for them though, especially after the first Gulf War.

 

[Meat-O-Rama]

It seems to me that carrier based airplanes are generally too far away to be used for ground support. The A-10s need to be in the vicinity and not flying around burning up fuel in order to carry a full load of ordinance.

 

[ROMOSAPIEN9]

It seems to me that carrier based airplanes are generally too far away to be used for ground support. The A-10s need to be in the vicinity and not flying around burning up fuel in order to carry a full load of ordinance.

Aerial refueling dude. They can loiter over the battlefield indefinitely.

The very first thing any carrier based plane does is refuel. Then hang around the battlefield. Then refuel. Then hang around the battlefield....etc...

 

[burmafrd]

Basically the A-10 would have to be massively modified to be carrier capable. Not going to happen.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Basically the A-10 would have to be massively modified to be carrier capable. Not going to happen.

Didn't Doolittle launch Bombers (b-25s maybe) from an air craft carrier back in WWII?

Not sure how big the difference (size wise) between those planes and the A-10 and not also sure the difference between flight decks now compared to WWII era.

Just seems if they wanted to bad enough, they probably could.

But as you said, it would probably be such a massive project that they would not do it as it would be cost prohibitive.

 

[tomson75]

Didn't Doolittle launch Bombers (b-25s maybe) from an air craft carrier back in WWII?

Not sure how big the difference (size wise) between those planes and the A-10 and not also sure the difference between flight decks now compared to WWII era.

Just seems if they wanted to bad enough, they probably could.

But as you said, it would probably be such a massive project that they would not do it as it would be cost prohibitive.

B-25 Mitchell Specifications
Primary Function: Bomber
Contractor: North American
Crew: 5 (pilot, bombadier, tail gunner, waist gunner, and turret operater), plus bombardier added in J version
Unit Cost: $96,000
Powerplant
Two Wright R-2600-9 fourteen-cylinder radial engines rated at 1700 h.p. each
Dimensions
Length: 52 ft. 11 in.
Wingspan: 67 ft 7 in
Height: 15 ft. 9 in.
Weights
Empty: 22,000 lb
Maximum Takeoff: 28,460 lb
Performance
Speed: 275 mph
Ceiling: 25,000 ft
Range: 1,200 miles
Armament
Ten .50 caliber machine guns and 3,000 lb of bombs
Service Life
First Flight: August 19, 1940
End of Service: 1958
Number Built: [9,816 total]



A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) Specifications
Primary Function: close air support (A-10), airborne forward air control (OA-10)
Contractor: Fairchild Republic Co.
Crew: One
Unit Cost: $9.8 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)
Powerplant
Two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans (9,065 pounds each)
Dimensions
Length: 53 feet, 4 inches (16.16 meters)
Wingspan: 57 feet, 6 inches (17.42 meters)
Height: 14 feet, 8 inches (4.42 meters)
Weights
Empty: 25,600 lb
Maximum Takeoff: 51,000 lb (22950 kg)
Performance
Speed: 420 mph (Mach 0.56)
Ceiling: 45,000 feet (13636 meters)
Range: 800 miles (695 nm)
Armament
One 30 mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel Gatling gun; up to 16,000 pounds (7,200 kilograms) of mixed ordnance on eight under-wing and three under-fuselage pylon stations, including 500 pounds (225 kilograms) of Mk-82 and 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) of Mk-84 series low/high drag bombs, incendiary cluster bombs, combined effects munitions, mine dispensing munitions, AGM-65 Maverick missiles and laser-guided/electro-optically guided bombs; infrared countermeasure flares; electronic countermeasure chaff; jammer pods; 2.75-inch (6.99 centimeters) rockets; illumination flares and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.
Service Life
First Flight: May 10, 1972 (prototype)
April 5, 1972 (A-10)
End of Service: N/A
Number Built: A-10A (721) + A-10B (30) [~751 total]

It could be done, but at tremendous cost.

 

[ROMOSAPIEN9]

They would have to restart production in order to make any for carrier ops. The design would have to be completely overhauled. It could be done, but it won't be done.

I guess I'm just biased to the mighty Warthog. There's nothing quite like the sight of an A-10 prowling low and slow over the tree tops looking for something to kill. I wanna see the skies swarming with them.

I'd just like to see the Navy operate a plane with similar specific functions. A flying tank. A tank/bunker killer. A machine that can put the kind of immediate pounding on a ground adversary like the A-10 can with the Avenger 30mm cannon. 4200 rpm of armor piercing, incendiary rounds.

 

[burmafrd]

Doolittle launched planes- they did not land on carriers and would have broken up if they tried. Also we did not use catapults back then. Would have to use them to launch A-10's; hence the need to massively modify them, not to mention strengthening the entire plane to withstand landings on carriers.
Basically have to build new planes.

 

[Aikmaniac]

By the time the Navy paid to prepare the A-10's for carrier launch, they could've kept the F-14D Bombcat's in service.

It's a good idea though but don't really see the need, other than saving fuel by not having to fly around Saudi Arabia.

 

[burmafrd]

The Navy was stupid about the F-14 pretty much from Day One. First they wasted years when they should have replaced the engines on the first models; then they wasted more years flying the A-6 when they could have just built more converted F-14's that would have done the job better and at the same time been capable of fighter operations. Then they finally do convert the F-14s only a relative few years before they decided to retire it. Just plain dumb. The SMART thing would have been to have re engined the F-14s by 1980; at the same time start building BombCats. They still would have kept some A-6's because the smaller older carriers really were not big enough for the F-14, but if they had done it right by the early 80's when most of our operational carriers were the Nimitz class they would have been all F-14's on board and much more capable.

 

[Blake]

The name of the game in the air has always been "Air Superiority." You get that, and you control the skies and somewhat the battlefield. But in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we have air superiority locked up. We need to more aggressively pursue ground superiority IMO.

I think if we could outfit a few squadrons of A-10's for carrier operations we could end the ground war much faster. The A-10 is renowned to be the weapon that the insurgents fear the most, and the weapon in which our ground forces seem to hold in highest regard. It's like a winged angel to our guys, and wings of death to the enemy.

Here's a quick highlight video for the uninitiated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nINgqs0_nh8





Albeit a 30 year old weapons platform, due to its distinguished service in Desert Storm and beyond, it continues to get all the latest and most modern software and hardware updates. It will be flying long into the new millenium.


The big problem with this right off the bat is the fact that the Navy or Marines does not currently operate A-10's. The Air Force solely operates them and for some stupid reason the armed forces can be very proprietary when it comes to cross pollination of air craft and other equipment.

Also, the A-10's design would have to be modified in such a way that its wings could be folded for carrier operations storage.


The Marines have specific carriers in which they operate only Harriers. Why not have a couple A-10 dedicated carriers. Or better yet, why not have at least one Marine A-10 squadron on each carrier.

That's just something that has been gnawing at me a while. Thought I'd get it off my chest.

As someone who is currently serving in the U.S. Marines I have a couple things to say about this.

One piece of highdollar machinery obviously isn't going to solve all our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan and considering that the Navy hardly gives the Marine Corps. any money we're probably not going to be flying those babies around anytime soon.

You have to consider how big of an impact it would really have over there anyway and if it would be really worth using when we have plenty of rotary wing aircraft that can do pretty much the exact same thing aside from the speed and allusiveness. Considering the enemy we're fighting over there I cant imagine having much use for the A-10..granted my knowledge of military aircraft and they're use is very limited.

Also, things in Iraq are really slow now to begin with except for the ocassional roadside bomb which is all them cowards can seem to muster up anymore. When we were doing alot of fighting over there it was usually door to door house to house fighting in where the Marines would sweep through entire neighborhoods at a time and when we did need to take out a building well, we had tanks.

We're not exactly fighting entire battalions with frontlines in where something like an A-10 could be implemented to drop missiles or napalm on they're azzes and the enemy doesn't exactly have alot of heavy armored vehicles. They do fire artillery at us though but we usually just beat them to the punch with our very own howitzers.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to have a-10's just that the Marine Corps. would have to really consider if they'd make enough of a difference to include them.

One last note, it's just a fact that we the Marines do alot more with alot less..let the other branches have all the fancy equipment. Just give us M-16's that work and some deuce gear and we'll kill every mutha ***a in sight.