A-10 being retired?

peter · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:06 am

Would the A10's not be a good platform for fire fighting?

51fixer · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:16 pm

peter wrote:

Would the A10's not be a good platform for fire fighting?

You would be limited to external tanks for the most part.
Other than the cannon bay I don't know if it has much internal room for Cubic Gallonage of retardant.
Seems more large airliner size A/C are being utilized nowadays so it loses out in size.

L2Driver · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:30 pm

I don't think you could effectively convert the A-10 into a worthwhile fire bomber. As already mentioned, it seems like converted airliners are the path forward.

Speedy · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:13 pm

You're missing the big picture here with the firefighting conversion.

You say 'bigger is better'...and that's not necessarily the case. The A-10 would make an interesting platform in the small-to-medium capacity. There are some fires that require the ability to drop a smaller precision load in a very difficult to reach place. Look at the Air Tractors that they utilize with 800 gallon tanks. That plane can get into positions that the Neptunes, C-130's, DC-10 couldn't possibly go into.

Same way that you can't compare what a Huey or Erickson Air Crane can do with a bucket/snorkel against a fixed wing platform.

I think the A-10 could make a very interesting conversion.

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3331

Speedy wrote:

You're missing the big picture here with the firefighting conversion.

You say 'bigger is better'...and that's not necessarily the case. The A-10 would make an interesting platform in the small-to-medium capacity. There are some fires that require the ability to drop a smaller precision load in a very difficult to reach place. Look at the Air Tractors that they utilize with 800 gallon tanks. That plane can get into positions that the Neptunes, C-130's, DC-10 couldn't possibly go into.

Same way that you can't compare what a Huey or Erickson Air Crane can do with a bucket/snorkel against a fixed wing platform.

I think the A-10 could make a very interesting conversion.

....and I'm sure the chances of the government selling any off to civilian operators are somewhere less than zero!

51fixer · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:22 pm

Mike wrote:

Speedy wrote:

Look at the Air Tractors that they utilize with 800 gallon tanks.

800 gal in an Air Tractor?
Thats around 7200 lbs of load plus pilot and fuel.
Do they have a 8000 lb useful load?

To get the A-10 Certified for Firefighting is a many million dollar project.
Not saying it can't be done but it is asking for a lot of energy and capital to be put into an effort that has many other projects and programs already in place.
It may be ideal for the job but it doesn't make it easy or cost effective to develop.

marine air · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:19 pm

The A-10 could have a tank hung onto the belly like the F7F Tigercat had. It could also have slipper tanks fitted to the wing hardpoints like the SPitfire and Mosquito had. It would offer exceptional load capacity, range, single pilot operations, and maneuverability the airliners wouldn't dare to attempt. Much cheaper than a helicopter in tight areas.

Versatile · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:35 pm **Posts:** 636

Wouldn't the A-10 be better at being a spotting aircraft to direct the big boys in?

whistlingdeath77 · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:55 pm

Really Tom? Lol

L2Driver · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:53 pm

I think the OV-10 makes a far more economical spotter

pilot06 · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:57 pm

" the A-10's 30 mm cannon is immune to electronic warfare." Gotta love it.

pilot06 · **Posted:** Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:04 pm

That's mild compared to some of the B-17's that made it back.

Cherrybomber13 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:35 am

Im just amazing this thread has garnered this much interest...

Pogo · **Posted:** Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:44 pm

And I'm amazed I just read all three pages of it. Guess the A-10's a pretty cool airplane. Nice to see it compared to an OV-10! And very cool video link, Cherry!

L2Driver · **Posted:** Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:28 pm

SaxMan wrote:

I understand the AF's argument that it cannot afford the luxury of mission-specific airplanes in an era of shrinking budgets, but multi-role aircraft tend to always come up short in the close support role. If history is any kind of precursor, there is always going to be the need for the close support role that can only be handled by planes that go low and slow. Look what happened in Korea: The AF had their F-80s, F-84 and F-86s, but it ended up being the prop-driven P-51 that did the heavy lifting in the close support role. Then, in Vietnam, despite having Phantoms and Super Sabres, among others, in the inventory, the Air Force had to go and acquire a (god forbid) prop-driven Navy plane, the Skyraider for the close support role. For the last 30 some odd years, the USAF finally has the right tool for the job and they keep trying to push it aside at every opportunity, only for it to make a comeback.

This is largely correct although USAF rationale isn't anti-CAS but rather pro multi-role.

The crux of the issue is that most Western air forces see their role as strategic and have never seriously structured for CAS/BAI. Multi-role aircraft allow versatility so assets can be mixed/matched to meet the overall objectives of the air campaign -- of which CAS is a small portion.

The problem, when viewed through the eyes of Big Army, is that a task-specific airframe like the A-10 will probably be available for support when called upon. A multi-role aircraft might be tasked to perform some other task within the USAF overall master air plan and (again in the eyes of Big Army) potentially not be available to provide CAS support when needed.

Risk aversion to the CAS role will rear its ugly head at some point. The Gen-5 jets are ridiculously expensive. The F-22 is north of $400M/copy and the current price of the F-35 is $175M each and carries a whopping 180 rounds of ammo for its gun.

Barring introduction of some type of light attack aircraft (AT-6?) -- which would again reintroduce a task-specific airframe -- USAF will be right back to where it is today albeit with far fewer, way more expensive jets.

Warbird Information Exchange

A-10 being retired?

Who is online