Who would have tought! USAF will fly the Yak..coufh Alenia design after all 🙂
Who will chip in on my bet that the T-100 will differ very little on the exterior design from the Yak-130.. coufh, i meant M-346?

I don’t know, I’m thinking what a sad and pathetic situation the U.S. military and defence industry has become, not being able to design, build and deliver a trainer aircraft in general! But in reality I would hate to think what U.S. ‘corporate’ defence industry would create if they were given the opertunity and faith ……….. complexity, time blow-outs and massive over costs 🙁

Regards
Pioneer

Going, Going, Gone… Hate the idea of it on a sentimental level, but the utility of maintaining the fleet is lessening. First, I hope we avoid any more conflicts where an aircraft where the A-10 is relevant- read Afghanistan. (or any conflicts at all) Second, if there is any class of aircraft that can be replaced most effectively by a UCAV, it is CAS aircraft.

With no disrespect my friend. But after 12 years of COIN warfare in the Ghan, I guess it will be very easy to overlook the fact that the A-10 is a specalised tank killer. I grant you the Afghan-type COIN warfare the U.S./NATO has been bogged down in is over, as both organisations wake up and smell the roses, that whilst the West was chasing boogy men under the title of “War on Terror”, the rest of the world had moved on back to the emphasis of ‘conventional warfare’. It’s my opinion that the likes of the A-10’s tank-killing capability – spacifically with its Avenger cannon will still be required by U.S. ‘ground forces’ to steem and compensate for the enevitable force cut’s that has to compensate for the past 12-years adventure! As much as I believe that UAV like Global Hawk might be able to replace the venrable Lockheed U-2/TR-1. I can not say the same for your assesment of UAV’s being able to replace the A-10 in either COIN, to say nothing of tank killing!

Regards
Pioneer

Good point Fedaykin
Regards
Pioneer

My DearJ33Nelson
I’m curious, were you against the idea and principle of the RAH-66 Comanche design?
Because for a couple of decades the U.S. Army poured in over $7 billion dollars into this want to no avail :apologetic:
In technical terms it was not just armed better than the A129 International I suggest. But it was ridiculously priced as well!!

I am not implying that the U.S. Army purchase, let alone field another “attack helicopters” as you state.
The fact of the matter is that the combat environment that their scout helicopter (Kiowa’s) are and have flown in over the past 30+ years of their operational service exposes them to both much hostile attention and fire as to that of the attack helicopters (Cobra and Apache’s) that they have been geared to work in coordination with. But in saying this the U.S. Army itself has given serious consideration to the adoption of the AH-64 Apache in the ‘armed scout’ role!
Any sensible enemy will fully appreciate first hand the force multiply that the U.S. Army is and serves on the battlefield. Hence in realistic terms, instead of using adapted civilian helicopter designs (which the West has tended to do), then modify that given design to meet milspecs, have sensors, targeting systems and weapons systems fitted, the design has traditionally become sluggish. So my thought of mind, as appears to be supported by the likes of China (Harbin WZ-19), Japan (Kawasaki OH-1) and India (HAL Light Combat Helicopter) is to design and employ a specialised scout helicopter that has both the capability and survivability to conduct it’s principle mission. Hence my analogy of the U.S. Army adopting a variant of the A129 (AW129) International. The A129 International has survivability (slim-line design = smaller target, armoured protection [airframe provides ballistic protection against 12.7mm armour-piercing rounds & main rotor has ballistic tolerance against 12.7mm rounds], ECM/EW [radar warning receiver, laser warner & infrared jammer and chaff and flare decoy dispensers], crashworthiness incorporated into its design, as well as crash-resistant tanks are self-sealing and fitted with self-sealing lines and a digital fuel feed controller. The thermal signature is minimised by the installation of an infrared exhaust suppression system), it has self-defence and offensive capability (it has a built-in trainable 3-barreled 20mm cannon, it can carry a verity of rockets and missiles to supress enemy fire or simply defend itself. This doesn’t mean that it would be flying around packing Hellfire ATGM’s), the A129 was designed with reconnaissance and surveillance [with the ability to be fitted with a mast-mounted sight containing sensors for target acquisition, missile tracking, laser target designation, laser tracking and laser rangefinding] as one of it’s principle missions. In realistic terms, and knowing sadly how predictable the U.S. Army is with cost blow-out’s, I would be surprised if the A129 International would cost anymore than an adapted civilian helicopter in the ‘armed scout’ role!! Finally I would like to add that the A129 International has a lower footprint in terms of it being air transportable! With its narrow design, wheeled landing gear (I’m not sure if it has a foldable main rotor system?), it could be moved and transported in greater numbers than the civilian adapted designs that the U.S. Army has been fantasising about.

So yeah I think a variant of the A129/AW129 International would make a cost and operationally effective armed scout helicopter for the U.S. Army!

Regards
Pioneer

If memory serves, its main limitation was in terms of defensive aids and hardpoints, meaning that in later life combat missions necessitated carriage of chaff/flare and ECM pods on the two wing hardpoints. This meant that the centerline hardpoint was the only one available on some missions. I suspect the slim fuselage caused some of these difficulties, i.e. not providing room for the added equipment.

EdLaw, I guess this was the problem with Dassault taking the decision to chose to literally use the existing Mirage III fuselage as the basis of the Mirage F1 design. But replacing the Mirage III’s delta wing with the new shoulder mounted wing design, in an effort to save cost.
I’ve always thought that Dassault could have applied more combat experience gained by the Mirage III, when designing and building the Mirage F1, and the inherent Chaff/flare and ECM deficiencies should have been built in. I wounder if this was the case with the original larger, heavier and more expensive Mirage F2, from which the Mirage F1 was derived as a cheaper alternative?
For me what I have always loved with the Mirage F1 design is it’s wonderfully robust and efficient rough-field landing gear design (reminiscent of the SEPECAT Jaguar’s! I wounder if Dassault’s experience with the designing of the Mirage F1’s landing gear was responsible for the Jaguar’s landing gear design??). Speaking about lack of hardpoints on the Mirage F1, when needing external carriage of chaff/flare and ECM, I’m surprised that Dassault never considered employing the ‘over-wing hardpoint’ arrangement used by later SEPECAT Jaguar International! This in essence would have freed up the wing-tip hardpoints otherwise used for Matra 550 Magic/Aim-9 Sidewinder SRAAM’s to carry flare/chaff pods! On the issue of ECM, I don’t think the French have traditionally taken such individual defensive systems very serious. But I could be wrong!!

Just a thought

Regards
Pioneer

“These are strange and dangerous times budgetarily, which means the Air Force might finally get their way,” Aboulafia said. He pointed out that the A-10 is not particularly useful for either counterinsurgency actions or for the so-called pivot to Asia, leaving the platform strategically on the outside looking in.

Ok…… Once again the A-10 is in the sights of the USAF!! Has there ever been another aircraft so hatted than the true and trusty Warthog??
“Not particulary useful in COIN” – Is this the Air Forces view, or has someone even bothered to consualt the principle people this plane was designed to support – namely the Army!
If things turn hot in the “so-called pivot to Asia”, and the good old USA has to fight ‘you know who’, then I’m betting the right nut of my enemy, that it will be the A-10 Warthog, which will be a pivital platform against ‘you know how’s’ superior ground force numbers!!.
The way inwhich I see it, it is decades past the time inwhich the U.S. military ought to be held accountable first hand for its continues and never ending waste of Billions $$$$$, no that should be Trillions of $$$ since the 1960’s. The U.S. Military in my view should be forced by Congress to clean up its act on its continues programs that are either cancelled or continuesly change to something it was never going to be………

Regards
Pioneer

Why not get rid of both of them? There’s nothing the A-10 and B-1B can do that couldn’t be done by another airframe type(F-16, B-52?)?

Really the F-16 replacing the A-10 in the tank busting and more importantly the CAS role?
I don’t mean to be rude my friend, but what’s you’re experiance with CAS?

‘Time on station’, ‘Positive ID of target’, ‘engagement of enemy whilst in contact with friendly’s’…………
Not to mention that there is no better weapon (and demanded by the troops on the ground), than that of the GAU-8 Avenger cannon – just ask any soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq!!
For a couple of decades the A-10 was slammed and criticised endlessly by those who have never had boots on the ground. They were obsesed by Mach 2 speed and the technology requirements to put a man on the moon to kill some clown with an AK-47 or hunt and kill mobile armour. The USAF has at evey opertunity to kill the A-10 and its specialised role since its conception. Gulf War 1 proved and in fact exceeded the A-10’s capability; and yet the USAF still attempted to kill it off. Then there was the Bulkans War, where once again the A-10 proved its metal.
My friend are you aware that the USAF actual tested the F-16 against the A-10 in Battlefield Interdiction and CAS trials? (I’ll attempt to find some data and the results!). In a nut shell the A-10 performed superior to the F-16 in almost every aspect of these missions/roles.
After what the soldiers have experianced on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think there would be a revolt if the A-10 was phased out to pay for the debarcal called F-35 JSF disaster!

Again no critisisem intended my friend!!

Regards
Pioneer