Article

2017-03-03 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US military test shows the A-10 'Warthog' can obliterate the small boat swarms that Iran uses

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Blossom Unains5562 2017-03-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Iran

#1 Some of my favorite craft took years to defend to find it's other defense spectrum?
A-10 is not going anywhere.

Posted by newc 2017-03-03 02:51|| 2017-03-03 02:51|| Front Page Top

#2 ...As much as I love the Hog, keep in mind though is that all it will take is a few hand-held SAMs to make the day most unpleasant. I trust and hope the USAF is taking that into account.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2017-03-03 04:48|| 2017-03-03 04:48|| Front Page Top

#3 Not the up armoured Kenmore 32 cubic foot side by sides with ceramic coated metal lettuce crisper drawers!

Posted by Crinegum Ulaigum2776 2017-03-03 07:49|| 2017-03-03 07:49|| Front Page Top

#4 Great idea, fleet defense, but how to get it there?

Posted by Skidmark 2017-03-03 08:07|| 2017-03-03 08:07|| Front Page Top

#5 They're mixing apples and oranges! The NAVY needs to be testing Naval equipment from naval vessels not the Air Force from land bases.

Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839 2017-03-03 09:29|| 2017-03-03 09:29|| Front Page Top

#6 Maybe we can use the Navy or Marine versions of the F-35. After they run out of missiles, they can start ramming the speedboats.

As for the Warthog, they can just put a titanium leading edge on the wings and they can start slicing the tops of the boats off. :-)

Posted by gorb 2017-03-03 09:50|| 2017-03-03 09:50|| Front Page Top

#7 Convert A-10s to carrier landing specs and give them to the Marines for CAS support. It's a rugged airframe, how hard can that be?

Posted by NoMoreBS 2017-03-03 10:56|| 2017-03-03 10:56|| Front Page Top

#8 #3 Hemingway?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2017-03-03 11:21|| 2017-03-03 11:21|| Front Page Top

#9 I think one of the reasons they aren't used on carriers are the turbofan engines. I'm no expert on those, but I do remember reading that it takes a bit to get that type of engine up to full exhaust volume (spooling up?) which usually occurs during their movement down a runway. I do remember thinking, while seeing an A-10 during takeoff, that they don't ramp up to speed very quickly like a conventional jet.

The fan outputs would have to be up to almost full volume before the catapult activated. Don't know how that would work on a short flight deck.

Posted by Mullah Richard 2017-03-03 11:57|| 2017-03-03 11:57|| Front Page Top

#10 OH-58s were used with success on individual IRGC craft in the past.

I think in this case, it's a matter of dealing with small-attack-craft swarms. There are potential sea-based options, but...

Posted by Pappy 2017-03-03 14:05|| 2017-03-03 14:05|| Front Page Top

#11 Just when I didn't think I could love the A-10 more.

Posted by DarthVader 2017-03-03 14:33|| 2017-03-03 14:33|| Front Page Top

#12 Why are these just tests?

Let the Holy Warriors of Is-slime be exterminated by the 'hog!

Posted by Rob Crawford 2017-03-03 14:51|| 2017-03-03 14:51|| Front Page Top

#13 @ Mullah: Lockheed S-3s used big ol TF-34 Turbofans;

Pilots simply firewall the throttle(s) and when everything is shaking at the perfect pitch, he/she salutes the Cat Oficer who directs the punching of the Holy Button; and down the track they go, Zero to flying in 200 feet.

Turbofans would just take a bit longer to wind up than pure jets (no more pure jets; all in the name of fuel mileage).
but even the mighty Lawn Dart uses a 'Fan.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2017-03-03 15:07|| 2017-03-03 15:07|| Front Page Top

#14 Thanks, USN! Learn sumthin' here every day.

Posted by Mullah Richard 2017-03-03 15:40|| 2017-03-03 15:40|| Front Page Top

#15 The A10 has already been trialed off a Enterprise class boat. (i.e., they actually took one off from and landed on it.)
The problem is the lower frame has no provision for the stiffeners required to cat launch or add a tailhook, and the landing gear needs to about twice as strong as it is. It was originally tested against the 'painted deck' on the strip at NAS Virginia Beach (just like Doolittle), and was then tried out on the Forrestal during sea trials in the '90's. Took dang near the entire deck to take off and land, but it happened. Another problem would be the air refueling fittings; AF and Navy drouges aren't compatable (they did that on purpose).

Posted by ed in texas 2017-03-03 17:03|| 2017-03-03 17:03|| Front Page Top

#16 AF and Navy drouges aren't compatable (they did that on purpose).

Ed seriously what possible reason could they have for that? The only thing I can think of is that different fuels needed and this is a safety thing like diesel vs gas nozzles at the gas station but that don't make much sense either.

Posted by AlanC 2017-03-03 17:11|| 2017-03-03 17:11|| Front Page Top

#17 The mechanical details of the connection drouges is complex; basically you have to have an interlock with check valves on both ends of the connection, with a male/ female plug that will lock when pushed together, and release and close when pulled apart. Everybody burns JP4, basically kerosene.
The Navy systems have the male plug on the receiving aircraft; it's the round nose on the end of the refueling arm you may have seen in photos of A6's, and the fold out arms on F14's and F18's.
The Air Force boomer system uses the male fitting on the end of the sending boom arm, with a female fitting on the receiving aircraft. There are 'hybrid' tankers out there, notably KC130's and KC135's with the proper refueling kits, that can refuel AF planes from a boom on centerline, and Navy planes on shuttle hoses trailed from reels on the wingtips. Note that everybody's helicopters use the Navy system, if the copter does air refueling at all. It's common to see Pave Low (spec ops) helicopters deployed in tandem with an MC130, that provides air refuel, radar coverage, and com links.
The basic reason the two systems are not compatable is to keep the other blue suits from poaching your refueling assets

Posted by ed in texas 2017-03-03 19:42|| 2017-03-03 19:42|| Front Page Top

#18 Sorry for going on like that. The logistics of support units and what the Navy calls 'UnRep' is something I find fascinating.
It's why I'm one boring dude.

Posted by ed in texas 2017-03-03 19:52|| 2017-03-03 19:52|| Front Page Top

#19 #18 Sorry for going on like that

No apollys. I find this background stuff fascinating. It's an example of what makes the 'burg such a valuable resource.

Posted by SteveS 2017-03-03 21:52|| 2017-03-03 21:52|| Front Page Top

#20 The Navy needs a small craft variant of the HARM missile technology. Shot gun version.

Posted by Tiny and Company8334 2017-03-03 23:52|| 2017-03-03 23:52|| Front Page Top

#21 Sorry, meant to say HARPOON missile technology.

Posted by Tiny and Company8334 2017-03-03 23:54|| 2017-03-03 23:54|| Front Page Top

23:54 Tiny and Company8334
23:52 Tiny and Company8334
23:48 Tiny and Company8334
22:21 Zhang Fei
22:13 Zhang Fei
21:52 SteveS
21:47 trailing wife
21:46 CrazyFool
20:22 Silentbrick
20:11 Frank G
19:53 Zenobia Floger6220
19:52 ed in texas
19:42 ed in texas
19:32 Zenobia Floger6220
19:21 Crusader
19:12 Zenobia Floger6220
19:09 JohnQC
18:50 Skidmark
18:48 Skidmark
18:29 Skidmark
18:02 Pappy
17:58 Pappy
17:42 anon1
17:40 rjschwarz