mopaspider.blogg.se

That kind of role has some unique requirements that can be fulfilled by a more multipurpose aircraft, but not as well. It's highly likely that the replacement for the A-10 (current thought trends toward the F-35, but that's contentious) will be more similar to the A-10 itself. The swing-wing (used for stowing the plane on a carrier) could be eliminated, but that would defeat one of the main uses of the aircraft.It could have hard-points mounted, but they would need to be integrated with this swing-wing mechanism which would significantly increase the design/build cost and complexity.It could have an armored cockpit surround retrofitted, but it's not designed for it.They're designed for this without destroying the rest of the aircraft, but that means thorough inspections and expensive prop replacement prior to its next flight. Hits to the engine rotation system that may not cripple the aircraft may cause it to have to land with the props in the vertical plane instead of horizontal.Those huge props (38' diameter, which is smaller than the optimal 43' ( Source)) are a very vulnerable target - damage to them may make the aircraft unflyable.Air Force and Marine Corps lost 266 A-1s in action in Vietnam, largely from small arms fire." ( Source, emphasis mine) For example, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider (which the A-10 replaced) - a "propeller-driven design was also relatively slow and vulnerable to ground fire.Because it travels slowly, it's susceptible not only to MANPADS and other traditional AA systems, but simple small arms fire becomes a threat.It has wing hard-points for carrying additional munitions should the GAU-8 not be sufficient for the current mission.