# Difficulty of modifying the A-10 Warthog for carrier ops? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 23, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/difficulty-of-modifying-the-a-10-warthog-for-carrier-ops/511287 "2009-09-23T20:56:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/difficulty-of-modifying-the-a-10-warthog-for-carrier-ops/511287/21 "2009-09-24T14:24:48Z")
Ah, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/difficulty-of-modifying-the-a-10-warthog-for-carrier-ops/511287/22 "2009-09-24T17:04:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That sort of massive structural strengthening would add some serious weight. Maybe enough to ensure that it would never get off the flight deck with any meaningful payload? It’ll add weight, sure, but as current carrier-launched aircraft demonstrate, it’s possible to have a tough-enough airframe and still be flyable. I think the issue is that by the time you’ve stripped away the body panels and components to access the airframe, and then worked to replace parts of what used to be a permanently assembled airframe, it might have been cheaper to just start from scratch and build a whole new airframe designed around carrier-based ops. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/difficulty-of-modifying-the-a-10-warthog-for-carrier-ops/511287/23 "2009-09-24T17:17:41Z")
That’s just it- current carrier-launched aircraft aren’t carrying around 2 inches of armor plating in addition to extra structural bracing and so on. The Warthog does. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/difficulty-of-modifying-the-a-10-warthog-for-carrier-ops/511287/24 "2009-09-24T18:10:26Z")
> [@flyboy](#): > > This is accurate. The AF just invested a lot of money to update the platform. It won’t go anywhere until the JSF is introduced. I work with an A-10 pilot, and that’s what he says. And I don’t even think it will go away even after the JSF, which, though fine for many tasks, does not appear to have the murderous-massacre tank-with-wings capabilities of the A-10. The Air Force often seems to hate the A-10, because they despise being ground support, but that’s their primary mission and every time they try to run away from it Congress smacks them liberally about the head and neck. It’s happened repeatedly before. The problem is that the JSF is not designed for the kind of roles the A-10 fills. Yes, it’s “multi-role”, but it’s multi-role in the same sense that, say, a professor is. Sure, the dude can teach 101-level classes, but he doesn’t like it and avoids it and complains and doesn’t do well. He can teach 400-level classes and is great at them, but he’s going to drive students away if he has to teach 101. You need somebody good at the basics and good at communicating and working with youn, inexperienced students to teach 101. Here are the four “program pillars” of the JSF > [@http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35\_background.htm](#): > > Affordable > All variants of the F-35 will be procured within their target cost range. Operation and support costs will be dramatically reduced. > > Lethal > Air-to-ground precision strikes in all weather … air-to-air combat engagements – every F-35 variant will be highly effective in both arenas. > > Survivable > Stealthy, high-performance, supersonic strike fighters – The F-35 successfully integrates the technologies that will make every mission more survivable. > > Supportable > Reliability and maintainability – The F-35 will be setting new standards for both, enabling lower support costs and easier upgrades than legacy aircraft. Translations - Affordable: It’s going to be cheap for mass-use as a general-purpose air superiority fighter. Which is still about ten times mroe than an A-10. Lethal: It’s an AS fighter, but you can load a bomb on it. Two, maybe. Survivable: It’s going to be loaded to the gills with everything the A-10 doesn’t have and doesn’t need, including superfast engines. It won’t be able to survive a stray machine-gun round, so it won’t be able to Supportable: Hopefully it’s not a supply-chain disaster like so many other jet planes. Basically, I’ve said it before and will say it again, the Army will steal every A-10 left and declare war on the AF before it lets them take away dedicated ground support planes. ---
**Author:** ![flyboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4da419/32.png) [@flyboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flyboy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/difficulty-of-modifying-the-a-10-warthog-for-carrier-ops/511287/25 "2009-09-24T21:21:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You [sure](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Sea_Harrier) about that? 😉 Yes. We use our harriers off big-deck amphibs, not aircraft carriers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/difficulty-of-modifying-the-a-10-warthog-for-carrier-ops/511287.md?page=1)