A-10's scheduled for the Bone Yard

[APACHERAT]

The link Apacherat posted says otherwise, as does history(they had to replace the wings on all of them recently), as does my experience.

If they would have replaced the wings with folding wings, replaced the landing gear with landing gear that could take a licking and added a tail hook, You would have a pretty decent carrier based CAS aircraft.

 

[PirateMk1]

The link Apacherat posted says otherwise, as does history(they had to replace the wings on all of them recently), as does my experience.

They and their drivers saved my bacon a couple of times so I am a bit partial to them. Them and the AH-64's.

That said, the F-35 as a replacement would be a lot more expensive to maintain simply from the level and extent of the exotic technologies employed. Why they would use that when they have something DESIGNED to do that type of work I have no idea. I guarantee you the maintainece on the F-35 is not going to be cheaper especially if used as a close support aircraft. Whoever is claiming the A-10 is more expensive to maintain is doing it wrong. That aircraft is a SIMPLE aircraft. Its designed to be shot at and repaired easily. I bet I could contract out a new batch of them and come in with brand new aircraft at half what a bare bones F-16 new would cost let alone what the F-35 costs. Replacing the wings on the A-10 should be a simple and relatively inexpensive endeavor as compared to an F-15 F-16 B-52 ect. If a simple aircraft costs MORE then a sophisticated one to operate and maintain something is wrong.

I build as an amateur, rockets. They can be as simple or sophisticated as one desires. Simple is far easier and cheaper. Costs rise in proportion to sophistication. Same principle that applies to rockets applies to aircraft, simple is cheaper and easier generally speaking.
At least when you have people with some sense anyhow. The A-10 should be the cheapest or among the cheapest aircraft to maintain. Since its not there is something wrong.

 

[Oozlefinch]

If they would have replaced the wings with folding wings, replaced the landing gear with landing gear that could take a licking and added a tail hook, You would have a pretty decent carrier based CAS aircraft.

I can also see the A-10 doing other missions, like wild weasel and anti-ship missions.

With it's low and slow profile, this would probably be an awesome aircraft for taking out air defenses. And with it's 30mm cannon it could do a lot of damage to ships.

Just imagine it. In the USS Liberty incident you had 2 Mystère and 2 Mirage IIIs against a single US research ship. A single A-10 could have carries more 30mm rounds then all 4 of those aircraft combined.

2 things that have long bothered me is the fact that the A-10 was never modified for carrier operations, and the OV-22 was never expanded enough for more missions for the Navy (like air refueling and AWACS).

 

[PirateMk1]

If they would have replaced the wings with folding wings, replaced the landing gear with landing gear that could take a licking and added a tail hook, You would have a pretty decent carrier based CAS aircraft.

The wings would have to fold twice or fold and rotate to fit in a carrier hanger. That would add quite a bit of additional weight taking away from its useful payload. Not to mention the sacrifice of stores mounts on the wings to allow for the folding mechanism. The landing gear is actually quite rugged and could handle carrier operations just fine. The A-10 can be operated from unimproved strips, and in fact was designed to do just that. Make a better Marine aircraft IMHO. If the AF don't want them maybe the Marines should get them. They would definitely be useful to them.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I can also see the A-10 doing other missions, like wild weasel and anti-ship missions.

With it's low and slow profile, this would probably be an awesome aircraft for taking out air defenses. And with it's 30mm cannon it could do a lot of damage to ships.

Just imagine it. In the USS Liberty incident you had 2 Mystère and 2 Mirage IIIs against a single US research ship. A single A-10 could have carries more 30mm rounds then all 4 of those aircraft combined.

2 things that have long bothered me is the fact that the A-10 was never modified for carrier operations, and the OV-22 was never expanded enough for more missions for the Navy (like air refueling and AWACS).

what i don't understand is why not build a plane to fulfill the role of the A-ten, but make it so easy to produce and maintain that this country could build thousand's of them.

 

[PirateMk1]

I can also see the A-10 doing other missions, like wild weasel and anti-ship missions.

With it's low and slow profile, this would probably be an awesome aircraft for taking out air defenses. And with it's 30mm cannon it could do a lot of damage to ships.

Just imagine it. In the USS Liberty incident you had 2 Mystère and 2 Mirage IIIs against a single US research ship. A single A-10 could have carries more 30mm rounds then all 4 of those aircraft combined.

2 things that have long bothered me is the fact that the A-10 was never modified for carrier operations, and the OV-22 was never expanded enough for more missions for the Navy (like air refueling and AWACS).

I could see it in the Wild Weasel role as part of a tandem or team with ELINT and EWAR offensive and counter support. By itself not so much. Anti ship against undefended or lightly defended I could see as well. The problem comes trying to take on a destroyer or something else that has sophisticated self defense measures. Its too slow to do that. As well as not having the radar or electronics to do the job effectively. Speed is the counter for those systems and the HOG don't have it. It would need a BVR ASM missile to even survive the attempt I would think. It would be able to carry plenty of missiles but what would it use to give target to those missiles?

 

[Oozlefinch]

what i don't understand is why not build a plane to fulfill the role of the A-ten, but make it so easy to produce and maintain that this country could build thousand's of them.

We already have one - it is called the A-10.

The A-10 is an amazingly cheap fighter, only costing around $11 million each.

The F-35 on the other hand runs from $150-200 million each, depending on which version you are talking about.

That is easily 10 A-10s for each F-35.

And the only comparable CAS aircraft I can think of is the AC-130. But they are not survivable in a hostile air environment, and at $150 each they are still much more expensive then the A-10.

What I find amazing is that you are actually suggesting that we build a replacement for the A-10, which already meets all of the requirements that the A-10 already fulfills. And this aircraft is also amazingly tough. It was actually designed to be able top operate even after loosing 1 engine, 1 tail and half of a wing! We have had aircraft return to base that had an unbelieveable amount of battle damage done to them.

ANd to me that is what matters more then anything else. This aircraft is not only inexpensive and easy to maintain and repair, it keeps it's pilots alive, in situations where most other aircraft would have crashed far from base.

Tell me how we could build a better aircraft for less then double the cost of an A-10 and I would love to listen.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

We already have one - it is called the A-10.

The A-10 is an amazingly cheap fighter, only costing around $11 million each.

The F-35 on the other hand runs from $150-200 million each, depending on which version you are talking about.

That is easily 10 A-10s for each F-35.

And the only comparable CAS aircraft I can think of is the AC-130. But they are not survivable in a hostile air environment, and at $150 each they are still much more expensive then the A-10.

What I find amazing is that you are actually suggesting that we build a replacement for the A-10, which already meets all of the requirements that the A-10 already fulfills. And this aircraft is also amazingly tough. It was actually designed to be able top operate even after loosing 1 engine, 1 tail and half of a wing! We have had aircraft return to base that had an unbelieveable amount of battle damage done to them.

ANd to me that is what matters more then anything else. This aircraft is not only inexpensive and easy to maintain and repair, it keeps it's pilots alive, in situations where most other aircraft would have crashed far from base.

Tell me how we could build a better aircraft for less then double the cost of an A-10 and I would love to listen.

i am just talking theoretical's here.

is it possible to build a modern fighter or attack aircraft that you can produce for the low price of say 1 million per plane?

i mean we built thousands of p-51 mustangs, p-38 lightnings, and p-47 thunderbolts in world war 2, yet we only build small numbers of f-22 raptors.

why is it harder to produce a plane type in the thousands like we were able to in world war two?

 

[Redress]

If they would have replaced the wings with folding wings, replaced the landing gear with landing gear that could take a licking and added a tail hook, You would have a pretty decent carrier based CAS aircraft.

No. Still too big for a carrier, and I have my doubts a cat could get it airborne. Maybe with the new Ford class cats...

 

[Redress]

They and their drivers saved my bacon a couple of times so I am a bit partial to them. Them and the AH-64's.

That said, the F-35 as a replacement would be a lot more expensive to maintain simply from the level and extent of the exotic technologies employed. Why they would use that when they have something DESIGNED to do that type of work I have no idea. I guarantee you the maintainece on the F-35 is not going to be cheaper especially if used as a close support aircraft. Whoever is claiming the A-10 is more expensive to maintain is doing it wrong. That aircraft is a SIMPLE aircraft. Its designed to be shot at and repaired easily. I bet I could contract out a new batch of them and come in with brand new aircraft at half what a bare bones F-16 new would cost let alone what the F-35 costs. Replacing the wings on the A-10 should be a simple and relatively inexpensive endeavor as compared to an F-15 F-16 B-52 ect. If a simple aircraft costs MORE then a sophisticated one to operate and maintain something is wrong.

I build as an amateur, rockets. They can be as simple or sophisticated as one desires. Simple is far easier and cheaper. Costs rise in proportion to sophistication. Same principle that applies to rockets applies to aircraft, simple is cheaper and easier generally speaking.
At least when you have people with some sense anyhow. The A-10 should be the cheapest or among the cheapest aircraft to maintain. Since its not there is something wrong.

The F-35 will be cheaper. Individual systems(boxes) will be more expensive, but most can easily be fixed at I level cheaply and quickly with high tech test benches doing pretty much everything. More breakdowns is not the problem, it is how much it takes to fix the breakdowns and how many parts are in the system, and the fact that the F-35, being servicewide, has lots of redundancy in higher level maintenance and alot less downtime.

Further, it will not be the F-35 alone taking over the role of the A-10. You mention the AH-46. It will be doing a big part too. In the long run, the problem is that as much as we would like otherwise, the military cannot have everything. You could double the military budget, and some things would still be out of reach. They have to make hard decisions, and this is a hard one. The A-10 is cool, it is effective, it works. But multi-role is what the military wants, and for a good reason. It works. The A-10 is great at CAS, but not so much at other roles. The F-35 will be used at the start of a campaign for air superiority, at the middle for ground strikes, and during ground operations for anti-vehicle missions(part of CAS). The A-10 will be spending most of it's time idle, waiting for it's specialty.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I could see it in the Wild Weasel role as part of a tandem or team with ELINT and EWAR offensive and counter support. By itself not so much. Anti ship against undefended or lightly defended I could see as well. The problem comes trying to take on a destroyer or something else that has sophisticated self defense measures. Its too slow to do that. As well as not having the radar or electronics to do the job effectively. Speed is the counter for those systems and the HOG don't have it. It would need a BVR ASM missile to even survive the attempt I would think. It would be able to carry plenty of missiles but what would it use to give target to those missiles?

I was thinking more of the patrol boat navies that are common in most of the world, not a full blown ship of a full frigate or larger. If you look at most of the ships around the world they are little more then glorified PT boats.

For example, consider the Iranian Navy. The largest ships in it's inventory are 3 Alvand Class Frigates (circa 1966) and 2 Moudge Class frigates (updated copy of the Alvand). And the air defense systems of all of these ships is pretty good for the region, but horribly antiquated to most of the world (they rely more on AA guns then missiles). While not useful in an engagement against say Russia or China, a Naval A-10 would be a perfect aircraft off of Somalia or in the Persian Gulf region.

And the A-10 already has missile capabilities. 90% of the Maverick missiles fired in the Gulf War came from A-10s. And yes, by definition Wild Weasel missions are handled by at least 2-3 aircraft. Normally one to "tickle the air defense", one to coordinate operations (this one is optional), and one to penetrate and take out the system. When operating in Yuma the engagements we hated the most were when the Navy and Marines were doing these games against us.

 

[PirateMk1]

We already have one - it is called the A-10.

The A-10 is an amazingly cheap fighter, only costing around $11 million each.

The F-35 on the other hand runs from $150-200 million each, depending on which version you are talking about.

That is easily 10 A-10s for each F-35.

And the only comparable CAS aircraft I can think of is the AC-130. But they are not survivable in a hostile air environment, and at $150 each they are still much more expensive then the A-10.

What I find amazing is that you are actually suggesting that we build a replacement for the A-10, which already meets all of the requirements that the A-10 already fulfills. And this aircraft is also amazingly tough. It was actually designed to be able top operate even after loosing 1 engine, 1 tail and half of a wing! We have had aircraft return to base that had an unbelieveable amount of battle damage done to them.

ANd to me that is what matters more then anything else. This aircraft is not only inexpensive and easy to maintain and repair, it keeps it's pilots alive, in situations where most other aircraft would have crashed far from base.

Tell me how we could build a better aircraft for less then double the cost of an A-10 and I would love to listen.

Personally I would do a drone version. Use the same general planform but take out the cockpit and associated titanium bathtub, and remove the GUA-8 gun and replace with the M61A2 version of the Vulcan 20mm cannon for danger close work. That would save about 20-30% in weight which can be used for munitions stores. I would also use off the shelf components and use smaller commercial high bypass turbines in the 11-1 ratio or so for better efficiency and cooler exhaust temps mounted over the wings to increase lifting efficiency. I bet you could do those on the cheap for less then 3million apiece maybe cheaper if mass produced.

 

[APACHERAT]

No. Still too big for a carrier, and I have my doubts a cat could get it airborne. Maybe with the new Ford class cats...

The scuttlebutt is, that the Ford class catapults aren't PC. With the dumbing down of naval physical standards in the name of political correctness in accordance to the American Disability Act (ADA) flightdeck crew members will be allowed to have heart pacemakers and the magnetic catapults would be a violation of the ADA. :lol:


Only pulling your lanyard but with all of the social engineering taking place, it wouldn't surprise me.

If these magnetic catapults are more powerful than steam catapults, that would mean that steam is no longer the most powerful form of power.

 

[Ford289HiPo]

why is it harder to produce a plane type in the thousands like we were able to in world war two?

Politics and earmarks.

 

[Oozlefinch]

is it possible to build a modern fighter or attack aircraft that you can produce for the low price of say 1 million per plane?

i mean we built thousands of p-51 mustangs, p-38 lightnings, and p-47 thunderbolts in world war 2, yet we only build small numbers of f-22 raptors.

why is it harder to produce a plane type in the thousands like we were able to in world war two?

In short, no.

Even the modern Learjet costs over $9.5 million.

Sure, you could theoretically build a military jet for $1 million each. But you would be giving up such things as avionics, weaponry, and most importantly the surviveability of the aircraft and it's pilot.

The GAU-8 30mm cannon alone costs over $300,000, that would be 1/3 of your aircraft cost all by itself, not including what would be needed to aim and operate it.

ANd comparing a WWII fighter to aircraft today is not even close. Back then state of the art meant a gyroscopically balanced gun platform for air defense. Today, missiles are RADAR and computer controlled, and a heat seeking missile can be carried and operated by a single infantryman. Sure, you could make P-51s for about $1 million each, but how long would a Mustang survive in a modern battlefield?

And the A-10 is not hard to produce, we made over 700 of them after all. The only reason more were not built was that at the time, the Air Force had little to no interest in building CAS aircraft. The only reason they built that one in the first place is that the WWII era A-1 Skyraider was being retired and they had to provide a CAS aircraft to support the Army because of the Key West Agreement.

And I mentioned this agreement before. I have always considered this the "Divorce Decree" between the US Army and the US Air Force. It put stipulations upon each service, as to what it could and could not do with aircraft. The Army had already won one battle against the Air Force when it came to armed helicopters. The Air Force had no interest in them (they wanted intercontinental bombers and supersonic fighters), but the Army needed them (mostly for anti-tank missions and CAS). After the battle over this was over, the Army won, and was able to control it's own helicopter development ever since. If the Air Force refused to supply a functional CAS aircraft, odds are the Army would have been able to take over that role as well from the Air Force.

You are throwing out a price figure that is so low it is laughable I am sorry to say. A single engine propeller driven Cessna 400 costs over $600,000 to produce. And you want to produce a jet combat aircraft for less then 50% more? It is just not going to happen. Not unless you want anybody armed with a light machinegun able to shoot it out of the sky, and the ordinance capability of early WWI (throwing hand grenades out of the window).

 

[Ford289HiPo]

Further, it will not be the F-35 alone taking over the role of the A-10. You mention the AH-46. It will be doing a big part too. In the long run, the problem is that as much as we would like otherwise, the military cannot have everything. You could double the military budget, and some things would still be out of reach. They have to make hard decisions, and this is a hard one. The A-10 is cool, it is effective, it works. But multi-role is what the military wants, and for a good reason. It works. The A-10 is great at CAS, but not so much at other roles. The F-35 will be used at the start of a campaign for air superiority, at the middle for ground strikes, and during ground operations for anti-vehicle missions(part of CAS). The A-10 will be spending most of it's time idle, waiting for it's specialty.

That was attempted in Vietnam with the F4 Phantom. It was kind-a' sort-a' good at all jobs, but wasn't real good at any of them.
Face it, the A10 was built specifically for CAS. The Air Force wanted to give that job to the F16 during Bosnia, but all of us guys ion the ground knew that the F16 wasn't going to scare anyone with it's inaccurate 20mm cannon.

 

[PirateMk1]

The F-35 will be cheaper. Individual systems(boxes) will be more expensive, but most can easily be fixed at I level cheaply and quickly with high tech test benches doing pretty much everything. More breakdowns is not the problem, it is how much it takes to fix the breakdowns and how many parts are in the system, and the fact that the F-35, being servicewide, has lots of redundancy in higher level maintenance and alot less downtime.

Further, it will not be the F-35 alone taking over the role of the A-10. You mention the AH-46. It will be doing a big part too. In the long run, the problem is that as much as we would like otherwise, the military cannot have everything. You could double the military budget, and some things would still be out of reach. They have to make hard decisions, and this is a hard one. The A-10 is cool, it is effective, it works. But multi-role is what the military wants, and for a good reason. It works. The A-10 is great at CAS, but not so much at other roles. The F-35 will be used at the start of a campaign for air superiority, at the middle for ground strikes, and during ground operations for anti-vehicle missions(part of CAS). The A-10 will be spending most of it's time idle, waiting for it's specialty.

Good analysis, however I do disagree with the F-35 being cheaper in the short run or long run. Its just a much more exotic and complicated system. That said it does have certain advantages with the computerization of its systems to do a lot of the diagnostics. I read the reasons claimed for why the A-10 is more expensive to maintain, and to be honest I think that's partially a crock. Granted it is an older airplane but it was simple and simply constructed when it was designed. There is no real reason the AF couldn't do a complete stem to stern overhaul and rebuild for very small amounts compared to the acquisition cost to obtain just one F-35 which is very expensive enough so that I would prefer to start up the Raptor line again than purchase the F-35. But in the end you are right it comes down to budget priority. I just disagree with the bean counters on this one.

 

[APACHERAT]

what i don't understand is why not build a plane to fulfill the role of the A-ten, but make it so easy to produce and maintain that this country could build thousand's of them.

Because any time we have something that is stupid and works, they get rid of it.

The following paper is over twenty two years old. With the retirement of the A-6 Intruder, America hasn't had a real attack aircraft that was excellent at providing CAS including the A-10.

Like I mentioned before, from my own observation and experiences my opinion has I always been that the Douglas A-1 Skyraider the best CAS aircraft ever built.

Excerpt:

>" When designing a useful close air support aircraft, we
should take a look back in our close air support history to
remember what this country has and can co. In WWII, the F4U
Corsair was the Marine's best close air support aircraft.
The later version F4U-5N had a top speed of 408 knots
and also had a range of 1120 statute miles. Its ordnance
load consisted of four--20 mm cannon, ten--5 inch rockets,
and 5000 pounds of bombs carried on the centerline and pylon
racks. When you think about it, that's an awesome amount of
firepower and also the speed was only 42 knots less than the
450 knots that the A6 normally drops conventional ordnance
at. Also, its range was compatible with current aircraft.
So when you compare facts, what have we really gained in our
current, expensive, high-tech, close air support aircraft,
especially when the Marine Corps will most likely deploy to
low air-threat scenarios and definitely won't fight a general
war by itself?
Probably the most impressive fact about the Corsair was
that during WWII the Navy (Marine Corps included) accepted
11,415 Corsair's from three manufactures (Vought, Goodyear,
and Brewster). Vought, alone, averaged building 222 Corsairs
a month in l944. Can you imagine us today building 222 A6's
or AV-8B's a month? I don't think so. We have simply priced
ourselves out of effective close air support.
Another fact from history is that when additional aircraft
were needed in Vietnam, the AD-1 Skyraider was brought back
into service. It could carry 8000 pounds of ordnance and had
a 3000 mile range (which equated into a substantial on-station
time).
Compared to current close air support aircraft, both the
Corsair and Skyraider were inexpensive, rugged, dependable,
quickly replaceable, and mission capable aircraft. I'm not
saying that we should build new squadrons of Corsairs or
Skyraiders, but they serve as outstanding examples of what
was done in the past, and thus serve as a guide we should
use when designing a new close air support aircraft.
The final question to answer is how do we pay for a new
close air support aircraft when all we are confronted with
are budget cuts...."<

Worth reading. Remeber we no longer fly the A-6. ->Marine Corps Close Air Support: What Aircraft Are Really Needed?
Marine Corps Close Air Support: What Aircraft Are Really Needed?

 

[Oozlefinch]

No. Still too big for a carrier, and I have my doubts a cat could get it airborne. Maybe with the new Ford class cats...

If a carrier can handle the C2 Greyhound or E2C Hawkeye (wingspan 80 feet), I see no reason why it could not handle an A-10 (wingspan 57 feet). And it is not weight either, a fully combat loaded A-10 (30,300 lbs) still weighs less then an E2C (43,000 lbs).

The A-10 is narrower, shorter and weighs less then the C2/E2C, and the Navy has no problems with them taking off from, landing on, and being moved to the hangar deck on their aircraft carriers.

So why would the A-10 be any different with the appropriate modifications?

This is when it is good to actually know the equipment of the military and what can be done with it.

 

[APACHERAT]

We already have one - it is called the A-10.

The A-10 is an amazingly cheap fighter, only costing around $11 million each.

The F-35 on the other hand runs from $150-200 million each, depending on which version you are talking about.

That is easily 10 A-10s for each F-35.

And the only comparable CAS aircraft I can think of is the AC-130. But they are not survivable in a hostile air environment, and at $150 each they are still much more expensive then the A-10.

What I find amazing is that you are actually suggesting that we build a replacement for the A-10, which already meets all of the requirements that the A-10 already fulfills. And this aircraft is also amazingly tough. It was actually designed to be able top operate even after loosing 1 engine, 1 tail and half of a wing! We have had aircraft return to base that had an unbelieveable amount of battle damage done to them.

ANd to me that is what matters more then anything else. This aircraft is not only inexpensive and easy to maintain and repair, it keeps it's pilots alive, in situations where most other aircraft would have crashed far from base.

Tell me how we could build a better aircraft for less then double the cost of an A-10 and I would love to listen.

The A-10 is the TIMEX watch of combat aircraft. "It can take a beating and keep on ticking."

 

[Redress]

The scuttlebutt is, that the Ford class catapults aren't PC. With the dumbing down of naval physical standards in the name of political correctness in accordance to the American Disability Act (ADA) flightdeck crew members will be allowed to have heart pacemakers and the magnetic catapults would be a violation of the ADA. :lol:


Only pulling your lanyard but with all of the social engineering taking place, it wouldn't surprise me.

If these magnetic catapults are more powerful than steam catapults, that would mean that steam is no longer the most powerful form of power.

The power available from steam is not the limitation. Nuclear power plant = unlimited steam. I am unsure of the specifications on the new magnetic cats, but potentially they could generate more force because of less wear issues. It's complicated and I do not understand all of it so I am not going to say anything for sure.

 

[Redress]

That was attempted in Vietnam with the F4 Phantom. It was kind-a' sort-a' good at all jobs, but wasn't real good at any of them.
Face it, the A10 was built specifically for CAS. The Air Force wanted to give that job to the F16 during Bosnia, but all of us guys ion the ground knew that the F16 wasn't going to scare anyone with it's inaccurate 20mm cannon.

F-4 was a different beast though. Do you know why the F-14 and A-6 are gone? Because the FA-18 could outperform both in the ways that mattered with new technology. It could not carry the payload of either, but newer munitions made that somewhat irrelevant.

There will be a degradation in CAS with the A-10 gone and no one is going to tell you otherwise. I certainly am not. But military budgets are about tradeoffs. You can accept a little loss here, for a bigger gain there. That is the goal of this.

 

[Redress]

Good analysis, however I do disagree with the F-35 being cheaper in the short run or long run. Its just a much more exotic and complicated system. That said it does have certain advantages with the computerization of its systems to do a lot of the diagnostics. I read the reasons claimed for why the A-10 is more expensive to maintain, and to be honest I think that's partially a crock. Granted it is an older airplane but it was simple and simply constructed when it was designed. There is no real reason the AF couldn't do a complete stem to stern overhaul and rebuild for very small amounts compared to the acquisition cost to obtain just one F-35 which is very expensive enough so that I would prefer to start up the Raptor line again than purchase the F-35. But in the end you are right it comes down to budget priority. I just disagree with the bean counters on this one.

OK, this is where I have hands on experience. I maintained aircraft in the military. To give you my history: I joined an F-18 squadron that had the oldest 18A's in the fleet, some as old as lot 6(that is old for modern aircraft). On shore we worked 12/7 shifts, no days off, 12 hour shifts, and could not keep up. It is not the boxes that are an issue at the squadron level. Swapping a box if you can get a part is a 10 minute job mostly on 18's(longer on older aircraft, but still fairly quick). Where the bigger problems came in was with wiring(it gets brittle as it gets old), which in the case of something as large as the A-10, well, there are a whole lot of feet of wiring. That is a nightmare. Hydrolic valves start going bad, and that can be both a pain to track down, and a pain to fix. Actuators, oh lord they start going bad fast, and those are a major job. Cracks and stress damage, oh my. My squadrons airframers went through hell. Then after our first cruise we got lot 13, F-18Cs, the newest 18s in the fleet. All of sudden, 8 hour shifts, sending one or two people home early every day 5 day weeks, it was heaven. All the maintenance based on things getting old was gone. We loved it.

And that is only the smallest part of the story. New parts for the A-10 are not manufactured. They have to repair the old parts. That is done either at Intermediate level maintenance, or Depot. Specialized equipment is needed. Training time for people on that equipment, and on the systems they are repairing, and as time goes on, the box is going to break quicker and quicker. And some are going to be unrepairable. And when one becomes unrepairable, that is fewer in the supply pool, meaning it takes longer to get one out to the squadrons when they need it, meaning more downtime, more cannibalization, and more maintenance time. And if the part has to go to depot, that is incredibly expensive.

 

[Redress]

If a carrier can handle the C2 Greyhound or E2C Hawkeye (wingspan 80 feet), I see no reason why it could not handle an A-10 (wingspan 57 feet). And it is not weight either, a fully combat loaded A-10 (30,300 lbs) still weighs less then an E2C (43,000 lbs).

The A-10 is narrower, shorter and weighs less then the C2/E2C, and the Navy has no problems with them taking off from, landing on, and being moved to the hangar deck on their aircraft carriers.

So why would the A-10 be any different with the appropriate modifications?

This is when it is good to actually know the equipment of the military and what can be done with it.

We had I think 3 E-2's, and one of those was always in the hanger bay. C-2's came and went. We did not have to have several up on the flightdeck.

Your weights cannot be right. A 18C with 3 droptanks was 55k pounds.

 

[PirateMk1]

The power available from steam is not the limitation. Nuclear power plant = unlimited steam. I am unsure of the specifications on the new magnetic cats, but potentially they could generate more force because of less wear issues. It's complicated and I do not understand all of it so I am not going to say anything for sure.

For your reading pleasure. Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia