Plausibility check: Carrier equivalent of A-10

It would more likely be part of the USMC, given their emphasis on supporting ground troops. As for whether either service could operate it, that depends on how much runway is needed for an A-10 to take off. USS Nimitz and its class have a runway length of just over a thousand feet. However, they also use catapults.

Let's see. The A-10 has a maximum takeoff weight of 23 tonnes. It's got a thrust/weight ratio of .36. The F-18 Super Hornet weighs more (Up to 30 tonnes) but has a higher thrust/weight ratio, of almost 1. Perhaps giving the A-10 better engines can make it capable of carrier operations, but don't the Navy and Marines have planes capable of support anyway?
 

Bearcat

Banned
Is is plausible for the USN to have a carrier based A-10 Thunderbolt II?

A USN or USMC A-10 for CV operation will end up being almost an all-new aircraft. You'd need much stronger landing gear and much more corrosion resistance, and you might need to look at landing speed (Fowler flaps) and pilot visibility in the approach. All these reasons explain why land-based a/c rarely transition to carriers (though the opposite sometimes does happen).

Another question is why. Carriers are limited in the aircraft they can carry. Deck spaces are at a premium. Why would the navy tie up a squadron's worth of spots, say 12, for an aircraft which is only useful for close air support? That is a very small portion of navy sorties.

IMHO, a USMC land-based version might have made sense. A CV-based version, not so much.
 
A USN or USMC A-10 for CV operation will end up being almost an all-new aircraft. You'd need much stronger landing gear and much more corrosion resistance, and you might need to look at landing speed (Fowler flaps) and pilot visibility in the approach. All these reasons explain why land-based a/c rarely transition to carriers (though the opposite sometimes does happen).

Another question is why. Carriers are limited in the aircraft they can carry. Deck spaces are at a premium. Why would the navy tie up a squadron's worth of spots, say 12, for an aircraft which is only useful for close air support? That is a very small portion of navy sorties.

IMHO, a USMC land-based version might have made sense. A CV-based version, not so much.

In all fairness, the A-10's ability to fly slowly is ridiculous, so there wouldn't be a need for a redesign of the wings for slow landings speeds, as the stall speed on its is only 120 knots, whereas with the Hornet its about 140 knots IIRC. Stronger landing gear would be a must, yes. Not sure about the corrosion resistance problem, A-10s are tough SOBs, built stronger than most aircraft are because they were planned from the start that they would take damage from enemy AAA and SAMs.

Yes, the why, however, is a good question, especially because at the time it was developed, the USN had attack aircraft on carriers anyways - the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II, and both of them could do the close air support job very well.
 
Another question is why.

Enter another person who wonders why.

Mostly for two reasons;
1) the A-10 is only better then the Superhornet in one aspect; flying low and slow while firing a huge gun.
Unfortunately, since the end of the Cold War, the Thunderbolt/Warthog is rarely used that way anymore, due to the proliferation of decent AAA/manpads.
What use is a Warthog if it's at 15 000+ feet and dropping guided bombs?
A Superhornet can do that faster and better.

2) the USN has just finished a program to reduce the number of types of aircraft it operates on its carriers. Thanks to that program, the USN has been able to afford 11 CVN's with a decent amount of aircraft. If the USN had continued the way it used to operate before (with a large number of mixed types of aircraft, like the A-6, F-14, F-18, A-7 etc) it would have resulted in fewer decks with fewer aircraft. Adding another aircraft, and one which wouldn't give much extra Superhornets can't do already, would go against that tendency.
 
Like CalBear says it would need to be a new aircraft. Although the A10 was designed for survivablity in combat that does not translate to what would be needed for multiple deck landings cycles. The USMC could operate it in a ground support role, but the Marines are using aircraft now that are also able to operate onboard carriers replacing USN aircraft units. The Navy, and that includes the USMC, are looking at using existing airframes that are already in use by them for new aircraft and missions, like the EF18 Growler replacing the EA6 Prowler. The EF18 is a two seat FA18 that is redone to do the Electronic warfare mission much like they did to the EA6 from the A6 aircraft.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
That wasn't me! It was Bearcat.

I would love to take credit because he is right, but fair is fair. :D

The A-10 is a very mission specific aircraft. It kills tanks. End of mission profile. Yes, it has done other missions, but they are all very CAS specific, and the aircraft is anything but Swiss Army Knife versatile.

You can afford that when your air bases cover square miles of ground. Space on a carrier deck is a bit more precious.

Besides the Corps has what it considers the ideal CAS aircraft in the AV-8 (and hopefully in the V/STOL F-35 variant that will replace it). It can stage off assault ships and be on call anywhere the need arises.


Like CalBear says it would need to be a new aircraft. Although the A10 was designed for survivablity in combat that does not translate to what would be needed for multiple deck landings cycles. The USMC could operate it in a ground support role, but the Marines are using aircraft now that are also able to operate onboard carriers replacing USN aircraft units. The Navy, and that includes the USMC, are looking at using existing airframes that are already in use by them for new aircraft and missions, like the EF18 Growler replacing the EA6 Prowler. The EF18 is a two seat FA18 that is redone to do the Electronic warfare mission much like they did to the EA6 from the A6 aircraft.
 
All in all, I would not want to be on a destroyer with a naval A-10 coming in for a strafing attack! I bet that big a$$ gun could sink a tin can with just a couple of seconds burst.
That gun was designed to bust armor, probably could do heavy damage to a cruiser as well.
I vaguely recall reading a book, Tom Clancy or Something like that where some national guard A-10's bust up ships.
docfl
 
All in all, I would not want to be on a destroyer with a naval A-10 coming in for a strafing attack! I bet that big a$$ gun could sink a tin can with just a couple of seconds burst.
That gun was designed to bust armor, probably could do heavy damage to a cruiser as well.
I vaguely recall reading a book, Tom Clancy or Something like that where some national guard A-10's bust up ships.
docfl

There's a scene in The Hunt for Red October which is something like that. The Soviet Navy is sitting in the middle of the North Atlantic, and the Americans want to show them who is in charge. So while the russians are monitoring an alpha strike forming up, 4 A-10s simulate an attack. Two of them are "killed", but they paint the Kirov, and probably could have done more if on an actual strike mission.

That said, there just aren't too many scenarios where that sort of thing would be useful. Yeah, the Warthog has enough firepower to worry pretty much any warship afloat, and they are survivable enough to dish it out. But in this day and age, there aren't too many times when that sort of close-in air strike is the best scenario. Even in Clancy's book, the purpose was to demonstrate that the Soviets were playing in America's backyard, not so much an actual combat scenario.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
All in all, I would not want to be on a destroyer with a naval A-10 coming in for a strafing attack! I bet that big a$$ gun could sink a tin can with just a couple of seconds burst.
That gun was designed to bust armor, probably could do heavy damage to a cruiser as well.
I vaguely recall reading a book, Tom Clancy or Something like that where some national guard A-10's bust up ships.
docfl

They could indeed blow a destroyer into scrap, assuming they got within a kilometer of the ship. That is a good deal more difficult that it appears.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Why not have an A-10 variant with CATOBAR capabilities to ease Deployment/retrieval issues for the USMC?
How about an A-6 Intruder with a GAU-8 Avenger gun pod?
That'd Be a bit of a problem.:cool:

800px-GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg
 

Blair152

Banned
FB-111

Ever hear of the FB-111? That was supposed to be in two versions. A naval
version and an Air Force version. There was only one version built and that was the Air Force version. A naval version of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, (Warthog), would have to be made lighter. Furthermore, the FB-111 couldn't
be navalized because it was too heavy for carrier service. This, might be,
strictly ASB.
 

Bearcat

Banned
The full GAU-8 gun is a big beast, as you can see from the pic. The A-10 was actually designed around the gun, rather than being fitted in after the plane was conceived.

There IS a smaller gun based on this - the GAU-13, which I believe is a cut-down four barrel version. It was made into a gun pod for the F-16... only it tended to almost shake the Vipers apart when they fired it.

However, some of them did find a home. With the Navy, no less. They were retrofitted to some LCAC landing hovercraft to hose down the beaches during amphibious assaults.

So the Navy DOES have an "A-10 equivalent" - it just doesn't fly, exactly... :cool:
 
Apologies and credit to Bearcat for the misidentification. The GAU-8 would be a good weapon to have on a small patrol boat, if it didn't shake it apart when it fired. Also with that gun it returns the empty shells to the ammo bin on it to help with the balance weight of the aircraft due to the fact that they weight so much. Might make a good gun for say a B52 gunship, mount 4 of them firing forward like on the B25J, might make some folks hunker down.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Apologies and credit to Bearcat for the misidentification. The GAU-8 would be a good weapon to have on a small patrol boat, if it didn't shake it apart when it fired.
The Dutch built a CIWS system based around it called Goalkeeper.


Might make a good gun for say a B52 gunship, mount 4 of them firing forward like on the B25J, might make some folks hunker down.
You might want to use the AC-130 family instead of the B-52, since B-52s are Precious antiques and C-130s, well, they Aren't.:rolleyes:
 
Even if you handwave aside the problems with making the A-10 a carrier plane the Harrier is still a better bet.
Look at it from the USMC perspective which better covers their CAS needs.
A large, super-carrier only, tank plinker or a smaller VTOL and rough field ready bird capable of operating off LHD's. After all when you major role is intervening in the likes of the Dominican Republic and Panama you need rugged and available CAS, but tank plinking isn't that necessary.
 
Top