Ok, but still it would be a new plane.
And as being heavier than the former one it would need new engines with military rating. I´d guess that alone would make a billion $ in r&d today, at least and only if you´re lucky.



There is only minor improvement in duralumin since WW2.
And all advanced materials can hardly be mixed with or used as substitute for current materials.
E.g. even substituting the outer hull plates with GLARE would mean way more problems in case of hits.
Sure, you can use newer alloys here and there, but not for the overall airframe, since it would be a costly new construction.



IMHO not, Usual thread drift.

Actually no since they've already done it before. Prototype 2-seater for night/adverse weather, only 1 made but still, it's already been done.



I think you're overestimating. Brand-new engines would be a waste when they can probably take the existing engines and put a few million worth of R&D into THEM and get the same results.




Are you thinking upgrades to existing aircraft? Because I think everyone else is thinking new build, I know that's what I am thinking.

Hold up, there Fred, I think you're assuming more common sense in procurement and the politics thereof than exists.
That's what they should do. Not what they actually would wind up doing in the first place.

Now now, consider this: The Chair Force won't want to spend any more money on new A-10s then they have to, therefore it's in the best interests of even their procurement policies to go about it the rational way.

EDIT: Two wrongs make a right.

Exactly, which they think is to replace the A-10 with UAVs, and/or an every-role airframe like the F-35.

Except for the guys who actually fly the A-10, anyways.

And the troops on the ground. And anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together.

I was speaking only in reference to the Air Force.

Don´t know about that XP. Fully functional? With complete "titan tub" for both crew? Same payload? Same balance? Same performance?
If "yes" on the later four, is there a benefit?
I can only see a benefit if an additional (belly-)turret would be installed, then you need two pairs of eyes. Currently you aim where you fly, no 2nd crew necessary.
But with an additional turret you need a new plane, or you lose a lot of payload.


Heh, nonono. This is not fast´n´furios where you install a chip or some gas in your ricer.
TF-34 is obsolete cutting-edge tech. 14-stage high pressure compressor, no one does this anymore these days in an engine of this class. Even those days this was a freak-solution.
The civilian versions (CF-34) have total different compressor-cores with only ten stages, and the CF-34-10x/xx and above have only 9 stages and are actually badge-engineered CFM-56x/xx.
All of the CF-xx are way to heavy to be strapped onto an A-10.

I repeat, more power is a new engine.


You just cannot substitute duralumin with something else.
"Something else" means a new construction of the airframe, with all the costs and teething problems.
And duralumin from the 70s is still pretty much the same like duralumin from 2012, and as there is no clearly "better" duralumin since then you don´t need no change.

Yes, probably, probably not, probably. Details are sketchy since no one bought it. It DID fly and it was built from a fully functional A-10A so I would expect that it was fully functional or close to it. I doubt the design would leave the backseater unarmored (we're not the friggin Russians after all). Since the wing and engines are unchanged I would imagine that the payload would suffer for the increased weight, but this video implies otherwise. Of course the video doesn't mention ANY negatives since I'm fairly certain it's an advertisement.



Yes. Having a second crewman means that you have a second pair of eyes available, meaning the pilot can keep his eyes on the terrain while the WSO looks for targets. Also having a WSO means that you've got someone dedicated to operating the sensors the N/AV version adds in. Lastly the N/AV variant had full flight controls in both cockpits which slightly improves survivability since if only one of the pilots is injured the other can still fly the plane back.



You aim where you fly for unguided weapons like the gun and rockets, but I believe that Mavericks have off-boresight launch capability, which means the WSO could launch them at targets off to the sides. Sidewinders have this ability too IIRC.



Or the 400 variant of the TF34, since it probably wouldn't need THAT much more power.

Heh, or Brits (No ejection seats for the lower ranks in their Vulcans...).


Hm. I´d still rather try it with better electronics, add-ons of course.

that just cos our pilots are so hard core.....and apparently slightly suicidal

Yup, Operation Black Buck. Improvisation at its very best.

Did somebody mention suicidal piloting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3rR8OIk ... r_embedded

Dat Refueling plan! Ouch! Hurts jsut to look at it!


With that said. Best airplane of all time. ALL TIME:

It´s great! Great Britain!


Suddenly i hear the voice of Kanye West??


One engine out - merry-go-round.

Gentlement, i present you The mother of all planes!!!

admit it! you cant deny it

With engines that reliable? Never happen.

Where do you get that? The F-14 can fly/land with one engine. It's a very stable craft.


The F-14 has even flown and landed safely with an asymmetrical wing-sweep even on an aircraft carrier during emergencies.[28]

Two triangular shaped retractable surfaces, called glove vanes, were originally mounted in the forward part of the wing glove, and could be automatically extended by the flight control system at high Mach numbers. They were used to generate additional lift ahead of the aircraft's center of gravity, thus helping to compensate for the nose-down pitching tendencies at supersonic speeds. Automatically deployed at above Mach 1.4, they allowed the F-14 to pull 7.5 g at Mach 2 and could be manually extended with wings swept full aft

Indeed. That's one of the reasons why it has two engines - if one engine goes down, you can still get back to your carrier, rather than needing to ditch in the middle of the ocean, nowhere near your battlegroup, and run the risk of not being found.
Though I think the Navy and the Air Force often don't agree on having two engines, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen

http://www.panix.com/~baldwin/hultgreen_mir.txt

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-loss-st.htm

22% overall losses mostly due to one engine out is unacceptable imho.
Due to the widely separated engines there were harsh restrictions to the flight envelope in case of one engine out.

I must say i find it highly amusing to note a minor addon to one of my posts earlier started a major debate regarding my favorite plane.

And when it comes to dog-fighting, the A-10 surprises most jet fighters by turning on a dime and aiming their main cannon at them faster than the jet fighter can get their own gun pointed at them.
Also, if my understanding is correct, it can happily laugh at a single sidewinder, because of their 'aoe' explosion characteristics, chances are the sidewinder will beat up the wings and deal insignificant damage to it's engines.

Longer ranged more explosive missiles however are a different matter <_<

As for 'first aircraft' may i direct you to this man?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse

Funny what a guy tinkering in his shed can build before anyone else. (specifically a monoplane with working control surfaces)

Also: i suspect a 'modern' A-10 would still be built to hold that all impressive cannon, but they might also have an 'alternate fitting' weapon platform with a machine gun for air support of concealed allies (say guys stuck in a house under attack) and a cannon for heavier jobs (say blowing up guys hiding inside the house).
But honestly i dunno if having 2 crew would help as much as we'd like, for starters if you kept the crew to 1 you could retain their titanium bathtub and save money.
Everyone knows politicians love to save money. (and then blow it elsewhere -_-)

F-14As had trouble because of the P&W TF30 engine's reliability, and lack thereof. Other than that, there were some unexpected interactions with things like compressor stalls from firing missiles only in certain maneuvers. High G outs/stalls aren't pretty, but a few bleed doors later and the problem was solved.





On the a-10 f-35 issue, I can say only one thing. Ardvark.

Unfortunately, the time when you're most likely to run into hostile air-craft is while establishing air-superiority. If the enemy's capabilities are primitive enough, then the A-10 may well be a viable anti-aircraft platform, but that's unlikely to happen (if nothing else, fighters such as the F-22 will probably clear out everything while the A-10s are en-route to the theater; in those cases even the F-35 could probably be used as an air-superiority fighter). Even if it does, you'll probably be dealing with a variety of missles, instead of only Sidewinder-analogues.

The other alternative mostly revolves around helicopters, where the A-10 is on the other side of the speed-vs-turning relationship.

Argh, the Tomcat was my favorite too, I shed a when it was retired from service ( with the usual " why the beep did have to retire such an excellent planet etc etc etc").

while true,that every aircraft has its "quarks", the F-14 was a fleet defence fighter, part missile platform part dogfighter, that emerged from the post-Vietnam experience ( tactical and strategic thinking that missile would reduce dogfighting to WWI or WWII, hehe the same was said before and proofed incorrect ah the planner never learn do they). The wide engine spacing allowed and stable carrier landing/takeoff, while allowing a large missile load (and to accommodate the large Phoenix missile with their 100+ mile range). The swing wings was the "latest" development is high-g dogfighting (and adopted by the other countries with various craft IE Su-22/24 series, MiG 23 and 27 models). In the end, like the F-4, the Tomcat was getting old and the navy had changes its mission ( IE more multi role aircraft models (or in the US navy case the Super Hornet family) and less worried about air attack on aircraft carriers).

haaaa, at least I still have Top Gun to remember those days.

but its interesting how old planes are given new live ( IE the A-10 that has been discussed) just look at the C-5M Super Galaxy's, 40 years and still going. B-52s, largely still flying after 50-60 years and going strong for 2040's (that means pilot who will be flying in 2035 with be flying planes that are as old as their grand-parents). A-10 D or E or F anyone ?