"Not beaten, not painted": The war with Iran exposed an old problem with the A-10 Warthog.

The American operation in the Middle East has revealed one of the problems for the American aviationIt concerns the Warthogs returned to combat duty. These are A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft.

The problem is that the operational range without refueling turned out to be too long, especially after Iran "drove off" American aircraft carriers and knocked out nearby American bases. A number of US aircraft required in-flight refueling, for which, as it turned out, many A-10 pilots were not fully prepared.

The Warthog's port for connecting to the air tanker's refueling boom is located in the nose, recessed in the fuselage. When it was time to dock for refueling, the air tanker's nozzle would hit the aircraft's fuselage, as the pilot attempted to adjust for optimal docking. This eventually led to damage to the A-10 attack aircraft, denting their noses.

But these are typical "battle marks" for the A-10: the boom sometimes hits the nose instead of accurately landing in the receiver. With plans to decommission the A-10, the US forgot about this problem. The war with Iran reminded the Americans of it. The American version of "Not beaten, not painted."

This problem is now being addressed with a nose-mounted refueling system, ideally a retractable boom. However, the A-10 hasn't yet achieved this ideal, so the current solution is a fuel lock fixed to a metal pyramid in the nose of the aircraft. After all, the retractable boom needs to be stowed somewhere.

In light of this technical solution, American media outlets have ironically reported that US Air Force and Navy technicians are planning to turn Warthogs into French Rafales. This is a reference to the visible fuel intake port on the French-designed fighter jet.

In this regard, the US is recalling a technical solution for the F-16, when some fighters received a retractable "unicorn horn" - the very same fuel intake valve that can be seen in this photo:

Comments

[Mouse]

Did you break your teeth...caries?
See Photo.....

[sedoj]

Quote: Mouse

Did you break your teeth...caries?

Got a tough nut to crack.

[Arkady007]

1. I doubt that all our pilots have permission to refuel in flight.
2. I don't think all dockings are done perfectly, especially in combat conditions. Using our Su-34 as an example, Andrey Dyachenko (Hero of Russia) said: "This element is one of the most difficult during flight training."

[Mouse]

Nobody argues with that...

[Adrey]

The photo shows a cool solution. One wrong move and the "mom" will fly right into the lantern.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Adrey

"Mom" will fly right into the lantern

This is the "dad". I think it's longer, but the rest is just hidden in the tank.

[Adrey]

Quote: Puncher

This is "daddy".

I'm talking about the "mother" from the tanker.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Adrey

Quote: Puncher

This is "daddy".

I'm talking about the "mother" from the tanker.

Got it. The Tu-95 and 160 have the same layout, by the way.

[hector]

Quote: Adrey

The photo shows a cool solution. One wrong move and the "mom" will fly right into the lantern.

I immediately remembered the folk curse: "May a device grow on your forehead."

[Magog_]

What I read in the article left a strange impression. So, are A-10s only refuelled in the air by carrier-based tankers, or are they carrier-based themselves? So, the Iranians have driven off the carrier groups, but what does this have to do with the Air Force's attack aircraft?

[Volodin]

Quote: Magog_

Well, the Iranians drove away the aircraft carrier groups, but what do the Air Force attack aircraft have to do with it?

It's not just about aircraft carriers and not just about attack aircraft, if you read carefully.

[ABC-schutze]

"The problem is that the operational radius without refueling turned out to be too large, especially after Iran "drove off" American aircraft carriers and knocked out nearby American bases. A number of US aircraft required aerial refueling, for which, as it turned out, many A-10 pilots were not fully prepared."
************************************************** ******************************
Well, those pilots who are "aimed" at working against Russia are, in any case, quite prepared...

I report...

During regular, annual joint forces exercises in the border states, A-10s "launch" from the continent and fly under their own power (with two refuelings and a full load of ammunition) across the ocean. Afterward, they practice assault strikes at local training grounds. Specifically, at Adazi (for now, that's just it). And later, these exercises will be practiced at a new, larger training ground, the infrastructure for which is currently being built.

But "refueling" is refueling, and for Russia, as a border territory, it begins, in the context of the "Warthogs" another problem is visible...

The thing is, this is a pretty "junk" platform. Its core weapon is a rapid-fire cannon, which fires only low-enriched uranium-cored ammunition. In the Fatherland, for example, given previous "bitter" experiences, the use of such ammunition at the training grounds there is prohibited for anyone who "shoots"—tankers, artillerymen, Warthogs...

And the borderlands, the shafaks, are loyal and obedient. In such cases, they care little about "ecology." The main thing is that the owner notices their "loyalty to their obligations." And notes...

But Russia, which borders on the border, should have raised this issue publicly a long time ago, at least at the diplomatic level (for now...)...

Otherwise, the Wehrmacht of the Fatherland has already sent its tank brigade with "Leopards" to the Russian borderlands (and it has the same type of APFSDS), and the "Warthogs" from the States will only be increasingly "unloaded" on the training grounds of the border states in the future...

By the way, in Iraq, at one time, especially in the south of the country, where they actively worked on Saddam's "tank groups" with their "low-enriched" garbage, the population felt the consequences of this for many years later (the birth of children with "anomalies" in women, infertility in men, cancer in both...).

[solar]

low-enriched uranium core ammunition

Not with low-enriched uranium, but with depleted uranium. The difference is significant.

But Russia, which borders on the border, should have raised this issue publicly a long time ago, at least at the diplomatic level (for now...)...

Depleted uranium has many uses. In the civilian sector, it's used as ballast on sailboats and aircraft, as counterweights at oil stations, in the manufacture of gyroscopes, as a protective material in X-rays, in the manufacture of dentures, and in many other applications. In the military, it's used in armor-piercing shell cores (since World War II) in many countries, including Russia, for example, in the 3BM-59 "Svinets-1" shell (https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5934063) and in tank armor in multilayered armor systems.

[ABC-schutze]

With all due respect, I must reject your objection. Especially the "it's used in many places" part...

Apparently, in the context of depleted (low-enriched) uranium, specifically in the context of the "consequences" and the MECHANISM of their formation, there is some difference in how, by whom, and for what purpose it is "used"...

The depleted uranium core of the Warthog projectile weighs up to 4 kg. Upon impact with an armored vehicle (or protected shelter), up to 80% of its mass "evaporates" due to the thermal energy released during the collision. The remaining core penetrates the protected space, ricocheting between its walls and puncturing everything in its path.

The portion of the BP "evaporated" during the impact settles on the terrain and the object as low-level radioactive dust. This dust is then dispersed and transported further across the terrain and into the atmosphere by wind, precipitation, and other factors.

If this "low-activity" dirt, even in "insignificant" quantities, gets into the respiratory tract, the digestive tract (with "mushrooms and berries" and the harvest of "gardens and vegetable gardens", etc.), or even onto the skin, then very serious (practically irreparable) health consequences for everyone are guaranteed...

I hope I don't need to clarify that depleted uranium isn't used in the "civilian sphere" you mentioned. At least not yet...

[ABC-schutze]

"I hope I don't need to clarify that depleted uranium isn't used in the 'civilian sphere' you mentioned. At least not yet..."
*****
Let me clarify that they don't use it THIS way, like in BP...

[solar]

depleted (low-enriched) uranium

Depleted and low-enriched uranium are two fundamentally different materials. Low-enriched uranium is used in nuclear reactors, while highly enriched uranium is used in nuclear weapons.
Uranium with a 235U content of up to 20% is called low-enriched uranium (LEU).
When uranium is enriched, it is divided into two types: depleted and enriched.
Uranium enrichment is a technological process that increases the proportion of the radioactive isotope 235U in natural uranium. Consequently, the proportion of 235U in waste material, and therefore the radioactivity of the material, decreases. This is called depleted uranium.

I hope I don’t need to clarify to you that depleted uranium is not used in the “civil sphere” you mentioned.

Of course they do. I wrote where above.

[Magog_]

If you had stated that "due to Iranian strikes on American bases closest to the theater of operations, the Air Force's A-10 attack aircraft have become problematic in carrying out combat missions due to insufficient range and a lack of fuel on board, and, in addition, carrier groups have been forced to withdraw..." then I wouldn't have had any strange perceptions of the article. Pardon me if I'm wrong!

[Volodin]

Quote: Magog_

If you had stated that "due to Iranian strikes on American bases closest to the theater of operations, the Air Force's A-10 attack aircraft have become problematic in carrying out combat missions due to insufficient range and a lack of fuel on board, and, in addition, carrier groups have been forced to withdraw..." then I wouldn't have had any strange perceptions of the article. Pardon me if I'm wrong!

I don't cite anything in other authors' materials. In this case, as a reader like you, I'm writing about what, if you read the news carefully, is, in my opinion, self-evident.

[Vladislav_V]

The jump airfield moved away from the theater of operations. The Iranians targeted nearby US bases.

[multi-category]

It's quite strange in general - the A10 has a pretty decent radius, especially with external fuel tanks

[Trapperxnumx]

So, there's no problem; A10s can easily refuel in mid-air without any damage to their noses. Excellent!
Then where did the dents come from?

[Volodin]

Quote: Trapper7

Then where did the dents come from?

I agree. Comments like these are touching. Especially this one: "For A-10 pilots, mid-air refueling is a standard task, nothing complicated. You just need to approach the tanker to a certain distance, and then the operator on the tanker will direct the boom."

The US Air Force itself admits that this is a problem (and is looking for a solution, which is what the author writes about here), but this is not a problem at all for our commentators)).

[Cympak]

Quote: Volodin

The US Air Force itself admits that this is a problem (and is looking for a solution, which is what the author writes about here), but this is not a problem at all for our commentators)).

I'd like to see a source reference. Without a source reference, the article reads like a "Rabinovich rehash of Caruso." The author clearly isn't familiar with the two different refueling systems used by the US Air Force and Navy. He lumped everything together in his article without examining the details. This is exactly what VO readers Maror and Dyrokol, who are knowledgeable about the topic, have written about.

[Cympak]

Quote: Puncher

But to do this, I needed to install an "adapter" on the cone. That's all, and nothing more.

This only partially solves the problem of refueling USAF aircraft using the hose-and-cone system. Refueling with a hose-and-cone system is more challenging for pilots than using a boom. Pilots need appropriate retraining.

[Vik66]

Well, that's all clear. But how helicopters refuel in flight—that's the first time I've seen that! If anyone knows anything about it, let me know, I'm interested! I don't think we have anything like that here.

[Cympak]

Quote: Vik66

Well, that's all clear. But how helicopters refuel in flight—that's the first time I've seen that! If anyone knows anything about it, let me know, I'm interested! I don't think we have anything like that here.

We don't have any helicopter refueling facilities.
A number of helicopters of the special forces, pararescue jumpers, army and naval aviation of the United States are equipped with a boom and refuel using a hose-and-cone system using HC-130P and MC-130P Combat Shadow aircraft, since the Hercules has a stall speed of only 185 km/h.

[Vik66]

Thanks for the information! 🤝

[AC130 Gunship]

Author, what does "driven away aircraft carriers" have to do with this? A10s don't operate from aircraft carriers. As they say, learn your math.

[Gavrilo Princip]

They themselves don’t know (what they are writing about) what they want...

[Rustam Kurbanov]

The Warthog is a legend. No other aircraft in the world has destroyed as many enemy aircraft as this one! With a 30-millimeter rapid-fire cannon and 8 tons of missile and bomb armament, it has no equal on the battlefield!

[firefox7022]

Rustam, you've created yourself an idol. On what battlefield? In the 80s and 90s, it was pretty good against tanks. When used in Iraq, it was already defeated by MANPADS. In today's theater of war, it's a disposable charcoal.

[Rustam Kurbanov]

Of course, there were hits from MANPADS, but considering its efficiency and the fact that the new aircraft itself is 42 years old and is still in service, we must pay tribute to the engineers who created it. I am sure many advanced countries at the moment would not be able to create such technology!

[AC130 Gunship]

Quote: Vik66

Well, that's all clear. But how helicopters refuel in flight—that's the first time I've seen that! If anyone knows anything about it, let me know, I'm interested! I don't think we have anything like that here.

When I was young, about 40 years ago, this was a common practice in the US military. No difference compared to refueling an airplane. Speed ​​allows it.

[AC130 Gunship]

Beautiful aircraft. I saw them once during training exercises in New Jersey. They flew low to land right over our hotel.

[Grancer81]

And with his face in the ground he looks even better.

[AC130 Gunship]

Quote: Grencer81

And with his face in the ground he looks even better.

Can you boast of real experience or did you just watch too much of Solovyov's scum overnight?