"End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet" This is Ridiculous!

If we were to implement something like that then I would much rather it be drones. No offense by any means but I don't want anybody on the ground taking control of any part of my aircraft while I am in it flying, even if it is just the target pod.

I was also trying to brainstorm ways to have a gun on an A-10 type aircraft that can slew around like those on helicopters. The only real drawback to the A-10s abilities is the fact that as with all fixed wing aircraft it has to do engagements in a straight line then break off and turn around and come back. Not really THAT big of a deal but it can prove problematic when dealing with terrain and urban areas to where the enemy isn't always lined up conventional style. We can watch random youtube videos of helicopter gunships and see how they are able to fly around in circles and pick the enemy off as necessary whereas a fixed wing would have to just come in and fire down the line and hit as many as they can before turning around. It would be a nice concept but it would be hard seeing as how the only have 1 pilot in there. Trying to slew a gun AND fly would be a problem especially when dealing with the speeds that the fixed wing guys fly.

 

Yeah but you have to also understand how difficult it is to accurately engage targets that aren't directly in front of you while flying an aircraft. They can do it with suppressive fire to just shoot in that general direction. But to accurately engage targets you have to be able to zoom in with the targeting system, aim, fire, slew, aim, fire etc all while flying. Now trying to look at a zoomed in image and slew it around and fly would be disorienting and too dangerous. Thats why attack helos have 2 people in there. One guy is flying while the other one has the targeting system slewing around and shooting at things. The whole "the gun moves with the pilots head" thing in the Apache is true but its not used that way it's more of a last resort if everything else manages to fail somehow or he just sees something and wants to fire a few rounds in that general direction real quick. 99% of the time when the gun is being used its the gunner (who isn't flying) who is doing it.

If I'm not mistaken I think the A-10 can slew the targeting stuff around and zoom in on the MFD's but the actual gun reticle itself is superimposed on the heads up display when they go to fire so that they aren't trying to look at a zoomed in picture inside the cockpit when flying the aircraft.

The Russians have the KA-50 which is a single seat attack helo but it's gun doesn't slew around like the Apache does because the pilot couldn't do all that by himself.

 

It seems as though a few different nations are trying to move to attack helos for the ground support role due to the nature of the current world climate. We aren't really fighting conventional armies anymore and the A-10 was specifically designed to knock out tank columns. I read that the British have moved to the AH-64 over the Harrier as their number 1 CAS aircraft. I think much of it has to do with the maneuverability of helicopters. The only problem is the limited amount of fuel that can be carried and the need for a rearming and refueling station to virtually follow them around the battlefield. From what im hearing the US is trying to do the same thing.

The thing is that you can't really run away from a helicopter while its on station. It doesn't have to fly outbound then turn around it can chase you down. They can also provide better overall situational awareness for the ground guys because its closer to the ground and can see more.

Biggest problem is the fuel and station time. Helos just can't carry enough fuel to stay around very long and if the troops are far away then that decreases the station time even more.

I believe there is the need for both. Fixed wing has its place with the increased payload and station time but limited maneuverability and the attack helos have their place with a nice array of hardware and better maneuverability but short station time.

Nothing against the fighter pilots their job is in the name, "fighter". Yeah they have their multipurpose roles now but their main job is to shoot down other jets. They just do the CAS role sometimes because they don't have anything else to do since the US rules the skies.

Don't worry too much about the fast movers taking over the job of CAS if they retire the A-10. They are moving that role over to the Apache guys they aren't going to rely on F-16s to do it or anything.

Plus whirlybird pilots are cool

 

I think they tried to give the A-10 to the Army a few months ago but the Secretary of the Army declined it. Something about the cost of repairs or something.

If they ever do bring it on over here I will be in a huge emotional battle with myself. I think I love my 64s too much to just jump ship but if they let us get dual rated in both I would be the first person in line for sure. I don't know if I could have an opportunity to fly Hogs and turn it down...

 

Yeah I poke my head in the forums over at DCS sometimes. I actually spoke on the phone with one of the guys who made the original LOMAC game a few years ago. I've never actually played any of the sims so I can't comment but looking at the videos of them it seems like they do a very good job. Helo sims are hard to make just because its hard to actually simulate what a helicopter feels like. Even our real simulators are nothing at all like how the real thing flies. It's always funny watching experienced pilots struggle to even pick the thing up to a hover in our simulators. Guys always walking out cussing at the sim and stuff lol. Its more for tactics training and avionics and weapons deployment stuff rather than actual flying.

Thats why even in helicopter flight school they don't let you anywhere near a simulator until a few months into your training. They start you out in the real thing from day one. Flying DCS A-10 or something you could probably literally start up a real A-10 and fly around and be alright. Landing might be tricky but you could fly around I'm sure. Learn how to fly a helo in microsoft flight simulator or something and get into a real helo and you would likely crash and die trying to take off.

 

Very true. Most people simply refer to any sort of air support as CAS. Most of the time when helicopters are used it's in the form of Close Combat Attack, CCA.

The terms get interchanged and mixed up so often that even many people just call everything CAS.

I've been too close for comfort when some 2000lb JDAM's were being dropped. There is absolutely nothing fun at all about that.

 

I was able to do something similar when I was a teenager. I grew up playing microsoft flight simulator, combat flight sim, all of the Jane's games etc. I was given a ride in the back of a WWII T-38 trainer as a bday gift and I was able to take off and fly around and land. The actual pilot had his hands locked on the controls of course and Im sure he was giving me plenty of assistance throughout the flight, especially the landing. But he was thoroughly impressed by my level of experience having never flown in real life before.

The thing is that fixed wing planes are designed to fly. Even if somebody has never flown any sort of sim or anything before if we put them on a runway and said advance the throttle and pull up they would eventually get off the ground and start flying. Helicopters just don't work that way at all. It's pretty much like a helicopter is trying its hardest to not fly and find any excuse it can to fall out of the sky. Back in flight school our instructors even said that throughout their 30+ year careers none of them have ever had a student that could hover a helicopter the first time they tried unless they already had rotary wing experience. And to take off in a helo you have to know how to hover in some form or fashion, and hovering is the hardest thing to learn so for most people it takes them about 12 hours to be able to even takeoff in a helicopter without crashing.

The problem with helo sims is that most of the flying you do in a helicopter is by feeling the aircraft. You have to feel it get light on the skids or wheels and feel what its doing etc. Its hard to recreate that exact feeling in even the most complex sims which is why even though the cockpit is a perfect replica, the avionics are perfect, symbology is perfect etc, many real pilots just can't do it.

 

That is quite excessive...I believe my flight was $500 and it included about an hour and a half of barrel rolls, loops, buzzing the tower, and all sorts of fun activities.

Best way to fly is to know somebody who has a private plane and offer to help pay the fuel price or something. Most pilots are great people and love to take up an enthusiast if they can afford it and/or have the time. I was able to get a few rides by just hanging around the local airport and looking at the planes. I was also a kid at the time so that part might have helped.

It's always fixed wing planes though. Helos just cost way too much to go joy riding in I've never met a helo private pilot who would take people flying out of the kindness of his heart. Not even being rude they just cost too much and although its cool to hover around and buzz the trees and stuff it's not worth the price if you ask me. Thats why even though I have an instrument and dual engine helo rating I've never actually rented one to go fly it. I know a few guys who have and they only did it once.

 

Yes the T-34 is what I meant. It was the one on the right definitely not the one on the left although I wish it was lol.

 

Multirole jets don't have the same capabilities as the A-10 for the very reason that their name states, "multirole". F-16s, F/A-18s etc are multirole fighters but their primary job is air to air combat. Yes they "can" bomb targets and use maverick missiles but it's their secondary role. The A-10 has one role and one role only and that is to support the ground troops. Yes it has the ability to fire air to air missiles to defend itself but its nowhere near as capable as an F-15 in air to air combat just like an F-15 is nowhere near as capable as an A-10 in air to ground combat.

In a world to where we have air superiority and in our current theaters of operation we need an aircraft that is able to support ground troops now more than ever.

The AH-64 is pretty much the helicopter version of the A-10 and was designed for the exact same reason, to stop the Soviet horde through the Fulda Gap. When that threat never came both of these aircraft proved invaluable in the war on terrorism where we don't need JDAM's as much but an aircraft capable of providing air support in close proximity to our ground forces. I've only seen an F-16 drop bombs on targets one time while overseas and that was from a good distance and I still felt the impact. I don't want to be anywhere near those things when they go off. However, A-10's and 64's were always overhead picking people off with deadly accuracy damn near right in front of us at times.

Being more cost effective isn't always the best solution. I would much rather our government put the safety of our troops as a priority over the amount of money it costs to ensure so.

Their plan is for Apaches to take over the job. The problem is that the Apache's are helicopters and they don't have the range nor the fuel nor the engine power to operate effectively in some of the places we send our troops. I had to do a mission in Afghanistan one time to where even the mighty CH-47 Chinook didn't have the power to drop us off on top of the mountain, they had to drop us off at the base and we had to spend 2 days hiking up the thing. It was the only time we didn't have our Apache and Kiowa choppers overhead looking out for us. We were in a remote area doing a remote mission and it was unnerving to know that we were alone and if we got into trouble MEDEVAC Blackhawks couldn't come and get our wounded guys unless we got them back down the mountain to where they could pick them up. You'd be surprised at how starved for power helicopters actually are when flying in high altitude and hot areas. Fixed wing planes don't have those issues.