And how the air force thinks it can replace the capability of that gun with the flimsy gimmick of a super fighter that is the F-35, I'll never understand.
It's funny how every time they try to retire the A-10 they end up realizing that whatever they tried to replace it with isn't capable of doing the job as well, and having to bring it back.
It's almost like it's the perfect design for the anti-tank/ground attack/close air support role, or something.
And the F-35 is one of those concepts that sounds great on paper, but is probably going to be a total failure in reality. I expect it will run into the "jack of all trades, master of none" limitation, and either be good at one of its planned roles and suck at the others, or just be "so-so" at all of them and seriously outclassed in each role by more specialized aircraft. (And seriously, a single engine aircraft in the ground attack role? WTF are they thinking?)
I would support a modernization of the A-10 design, though. Keep the basic concepts and design features that make it a success (like the GAU-8, the heavy armour, the high-mounted and separated engines, low-speed maneuverability, the ability to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off, etc.), throw in modern electronics with planned updatability, and add some stealth features to the airframe design (angled and screened intakes, stealth angles on the wings and stabilizers, fully enclose the landing gear, etc.), and you could get a worthy successor. But they're not going to successfully replace a heavily armed 'low-and-slow' design with something that can also perform as a 'high-and-fast' interceptor.
3 comments:
And how the air force thinks it can replace the capability of that gun with the flimsy gimmick of a super fighter that is the F-35, I'll never understand.
It's funny how every time they try to retire the A-10 they end up realizing that whatever they tried to replace it with isn't capable of doing the job as well, and having to bring it back.
It's almost like it's the perfect design for the anti-tank/ground attack/close air support role, or something.
And the F-35 is one of those concepts that sounds great on paper, but is probably going to be a total failure in reality. I expect it will run into the "jack of all trades, master of none" limitation, and either be good at one of its planned roles and suck at the others, or just be "so-so" at all of them and seriously outclassed in each role by more specialized aircraft. (And seriously, a single engine aircraft in the ground attack role? WTF are they thinking?)
I would support a modernization of the A-10 design, though. Keep the basic concepts and design features that make it a success (like the GAU-8, the heavy armour, the high-mounted and separated engines, low-speed maneuverability, the ability to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off, etc.), throw in modern electronics with planned updatability, and add some stealth features to the airframe design (angled and screened intakes, stealth angles on the wings and stabilizers, fully enclose the landing gear, etc.), and you could get a worthy successor. But they're not going to successfully replace a heavily armed 'low-and-slow' design with something that can also perform as a 'high-and-fast' interceptor.
A stealth A-10? I just got all warm and fuzzy inside...
Post a Comment