Get Homework/Assignment Done

Homeworkping.com

Homework Help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper help

https://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoring

https://www.homeworkping.com/

click here for freelancing tutoring sites

A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)

Systems Engineering

Case Study Analysis

Christopher D Parten

EE 461

12/5/2013

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................3

Problem (Issue) Statement........................................................................................4

Data Analysis.............................................................................................................5-7

Alternatives................................................................................................................7-11

Key Decision Criteria.................................................................................................12-13

Alternative Analysis...................................................................................................13-20

Recommendations.....................................................................................................20-21

2 | P a g e

Action and Implementation Plan................................................................................21-22

Exhibits......................................................................................................................23-24

References................................................................................................................25

Executive Summary:

Close air support of the troops and vehicles on the ground on the battlefield is an essential part of any military operation. The Army and Air Force have done this job over the years and the different conflicts across the world. The thing is though is the job being done correctly and what is the aircraft needed to do the job to the best. The Army and Air Force have not gotten along through the years of who and how to accomplish this role. After the Vietnam War though it was clear that something had to be done for this division of the military.

In the Vietnam War the Jets being used were just not getting the job done good enough for the Army. The Army started its own division of attack helicopters to better help the situation of close air support. The Air Force saw this and started the A-X program to find or create and new aircraft to be able to be the sole close air support

3 | P a g e

aircraft. Even though this was a program/system that needed to be done the support was not seen right away for it by the higher ups in the military. With this many issues arose during the project with the system engineers of both the military and contractors brought in to build airplane designs. These issues cause for many different studies to be done and redone slowing the process down and usually causing more issues. Though these issues did bring about a positive in the first time prototypes were built and put against each other to see who was the best design. Once though a design and contractor were found the issues did not stop there. There were issues on both sides of the program with the military and the prime contractor during the production phase. Due to this the A-10 went through several different prime controlling contractors. Which again led to other and more issues in the A-10 project. The issues though didn't just exists in the project side of things also in the design and production of the A-10. Even though with all these issues that the A-10 project/system had it did produce one of the best planes on the battlefield. The A-10 has been pushed past its life and proved its self time and time again on the battlefield. The numbers for it and its mission are some of the best all time for any military vehicle.

Though with these issues comes the question of an alternative that could be possible for the close air support aircraft. Of course there are many different alternatives out and many different alternative ways of doing things that could of lead to less issues. The best alternative though I think would to be is let the A-10 live out its life since it has proven its self and take from it and build a new A-X aircraft. This new A-X aircraft would be a state of the art aircraft that has many advantages over the A-10 but takes from the A-10 what it needs to keep the doing the missions with such great success. Also another thing is that the Army take over control of the division of close air support. It just seems more reasonable and that with this the division will have even greater success in the future.

Problem (Issue) Statement:

How do you support the troops and vehicles on the ground with the right aircraft? That is main problem here and the next issue that comes up is the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) the solution to this problem. These are the two main issues addressed here. Though there are underline issues that follow these that have to do with the system engineering that was done during the process of the A-10 project.

4 | P a g e

Data Analysis:

The A-10 Thunderbolt was the creation of a major problem in the military/air force for a plane to do a certain job on the battle field. This job was for close air support of troops and vehicles on the ground during the battle. The problem for the Air Force was in several places in that the heads of it were not wanting to have a plane like that, the army wanted control of their own system which was attack helicopters, and of course the money for a project like this. These three main issues brought up several other issues through the design and building of the A-10. Though without the issues I believe the plane would of been built like it was or became the power house that is known for today.

The major issue of needing a close air support aircraft aroused from the needs of the army to have an aircraft that could be reliable and support their efforts on the

5 | P a g e

ground. The A-10 came from the Air Force trying to solve this problem though the A-10 came with its own problems. First off the major issue was the people that were at the head of the project to create the A-10. The major problem with the heads of the Air Force in that their mind set was set in another direction than the way it needed to be for this project. This affected the whole project because the project was forced on the Air Force so they didn't want to do it in the first part. Also they had other people in the Army wanting this project but to go in another direction in the way of helicopters. These issue arose because of the different fighting techniques of both the Army and Air Force but because of the new battlefield they needed to work together and help each other out. Both divisions of the military needed this project though do to what the Vietnam and other conflicts after World War II brought to light. There needed to be an aircraft that could support the troops by being able to stay around the troops and do many passes. The problem was that the Air Force was trying to do this with fighters which were too fast to be effective.

The issue of the leaders not wanting this project was that they didn't give much funding for the project to find the right new aircraft. With this the early studies were not very conclusive but should the facts to that they needed this aircraft actually. Though with these studies came the next issue for the A-10 meeting the requirements set forth for the new close air support. This was due to the technology need for all of them to be met was not available for the maximum design of the A-10. This didn't just affect A-10 but also the other aircrafts in the project program. The main issue with not having the right technology was the main weapon that the plane was to be designed around. With this the companies didn't have all the resources needed to create the right plane so the planes that they made might have to be changed once the new gun was created. This is major systems engineering issue in that they didn't know to design the plane to fit the gun since they didn't know what the gun was like. Then the gun was being developed at the same time so the companies could not get their system engineers to investigate how their plane would react to the guns weight or any of the other aspects of the gun. To me this might of been one of the biggest issues in the basic design of the A-10. This is because as a system engineer you are wanting to know every aspect of the system that you are building so as to best design it. You are also trying to put into the design for seen failures and ways of getting around them. Without knowing the gun information not much of this is possible. With this the design of the A-10 was a true prototype in every word because it would have to be redesigned once the new gun was created.

The other systems engineering conflict that came up too with the design of the A-10 was the actual need to build a prototype for a fly-off. This had never been done for a contract to build something for the military. So not only did the system engineers have to prove in all the aspects of the design with numbers their plane had to top another plane in real world aspects designed for the plane. The A-10 design proved its worth but

6 | P a g e

it wouldn't be the plane that was its problem it was the company that built it. Fairchild Hiller won the contract for the close air support aircraft with the A-10. They were able to build the prototype but when production started on all the planes that the air force wanted it came clear that they could not do it. This was a systems engineer failure on the side of the military that they didn't investigate Fairchild Hiller enough to see that they didn't have the ability to produce the planes, the company had finical problems, and the staff was not distributed to the A-10. This is a systems engineering failure on the air force because they are the ones that put out the requirements, did the studies, and the fly offs for the project. For a systems engineer you not only need to know the engineering aspects but also the abilities of your company and the money available due to the fact that these are resources that effect the system in a whole. For a project this big there needs to be good communication between all aspects of the project.

Another issue that arose that deals with the system engineer side of things was the communication between the contractors and the military. This is a necessary thing in that without the communication neither side knows what the other side needs or wants to know. The contractors system engineers should of reached out more to the military to better understand what they wanted in their new close air support aircraft. This could be seen in the fact that some of the contractors didn't real have a design that fit the requirements that military put out for the design. Also the communication between the military aspects was another issue that arose through the project. The Army and Air Force were fighting over control over the division of the close air support aircraft throughout. Also from the case study it seemed to me that the different aspects of the military didn't know what was going on with project and where it was going. This was due to the fact that many times they had to redo studies and proposals for the different parts of the project. Another issue to deal with communication in the project throughout the development of the A-10 was the communication between the pilots and the troops on the ground. This is a big issue in the fact that the planes are there to support the troops on the ground and need to be in contact with them. I believe this is a system engineer issue in the fact that this should of been a requirement of the design of the plane in the first place.

Another issue that came up was the finical aspect of the project. Like any system or project that is being considered or worked on the finical needs of the project are a big subject. The issue I saw with the A-10 project was that it seemed to me the military was more concerned about the costs of everything than the performance of things. Yes I agree that things have to be profitable and manageable when it comes to money. Though here it seemed to me that it had more of a factor than it should of been. You could already see that the Air Force didn't truly want to create a whole new aircraft so that was hurting the project already. Though cause of that it seemed that they also just

7 | P a g e

wanted to go with the cheapest thing to get the project over with and save money for the fast jets that they really wanted.

Though the A-10 had a great design and was perfect for the role as a close air support aircraft for the air force. It had its own issues with the design of its wing and the conflicts with its joints to the fuselage over its life. Though is a issue for all systems/projects over time the true issue came from the fact that the prime over A-10 project kept changing companies. Due to this information was lost and projects to fix the wings were never completed by the different companies. This is another example of the lack of communication and share of information that lead to the issues with the A-10 warthog. There were also the other issues that the A-10 had face that come with the territory of being a military project. It had to deal with the politics of the government and different people fighting against to push their own things in.

All these issues within the A-10 project affected everyone that touched it. The decisions made on these issues effected everyone from the tax payers paying for the project to the pilots flying the aircraft. The issues also effected both sides of the project the contractors and the government. Though like I have stated the communication between these two is part of the issue with this project and why it took so long for the A-10 to become the plane that it is today. Because it has become what it was suppose to be and more the Air Force is now trying to extend its life which is its own issue.

Alternatives:

With every issue of a system or project alternatives to fix the issue come up and are discussed. The A-10 and all of it issues brought up the many alternatives to it from giving the whole project to the army, other designs, other types of planes like a modified fighter, and even the thought of scrapping the whole project. All these alternatives to the A-10 are an issue its self to it. When you have so many alternatives to a system it is hard to stay on that system and make it better to outperform and cancel those alternatives. This hurt the A-10 especially when it was changing prime contractors because those companies had the opportunity to go with the alternatives to make it easier on themselves than taking another companies design and trying to understand it. They had the opportunities to create their own design for the project and create a even better plane than what was given to them. Though in this issue the numbers for the A-10 helped it through this issue. In the fact that the A-10 showed that it was the right plane for the job in operation Desert Storm. This was not the only time the numbers and performances proved that the issue of alternatives for the plane were not needed at the time.

8 | P a g e

From the case study on the A-10 and all the studies done on close air support aircraft I believe that project could not be scrapped. This aircraft is something that the military needs and needs a effective one on the battlefield not a cost effective one. As long as battles are conducted on the ground with troops and vehicles there is the need for support from the air. This aircraft needs to be able to communicate with the ground forces and support their needs. It needs to be able to fight anything on the ground from the troops to the heavy vehicles like tanks. This means it needs to be able to have an arsenal of ammunition and weapons. Also needs to have the ability to carry all these different weapons on every mission since the battlefield of today is every changing with every second. The A-10 does a good job of this but there are alternatives to it.

One of the first alternatives that comes to mind and is and has always been fighting the A-10 in its role is the attack helicopter. This was the armies alternative to close air support aircraft before the Air Force got into the field. The helicopter has a lot of the same abilities that the A-10 has. It can stay around the battlefield for long periods of time though it doesn't have the speed of an airplane. It has a good arsenal of weapons that can be put on it for any mission at a time. The advantage of the helicopter is that it can hover over the target to make sure that the target is eliminated and with this has the ability for better sight of the target better eliminating the possibility of friendly fire. Also with the ability to fly in close and stay there they have the ability to put the weapon on the target with greater accuracy which in turn helps lower the possibly of unwanted casualties. Another advantage of the helicopter is the ability to be placed at forward bases since they only need a clearing to land they can pretty much go anywhere. They can follow the troops and be worked on and refueled with them better helping the ground forces and supporting them better anywhere on the battlefield.

Another alternative for the A-10 is the possibility of drones taking over the role of close air support for the troops. Yes they are smaller and can't carry as much firepower as an A-10 but a squadron of them can work together and be more effective. This could be possible because a few of them can have weapons designated for troops and others for heavy vehicles and other heavier targets. They can work together in being able to do multiple passes of placing weapons on targets and there won't be any time for the target to move since there will be multiple attacks at once done by the different drones in the squadron. The other plus of this concept is that once one of the drones is done with it weapons package and is out of ammunition it can be a scout for the others watching the battlefield from over head helping the others place weapons and maximum the effectiveness of the them and that mission. The other thing with them being small and light they can be placed at forward bases where small dirt landing strips are a usual thing. Also another thing with having the drones is that pilots running them from the ground can be at the same base that the ground troops and tanks are from. So they will be in direct contact with superiors and will know the battle plan better. Probably the

9 | P a g e

biggest advantage of the alternative of the drones is the fact of taking the pilot out of harm's way and still getting the job done. Drones are the wave of the future so why not get a head start on them in this part of the battlefield.

The next alternative to the close air support aircraft from the A-10 is to create a whole new A-X plane that can take the spot of the A-10. This is true alternative since from the A-10 we have learned from it what we need in a close air support aircraft. This new aircraft would have all the same requirements like the A-10 just upgraded in every aspect. With the new technology of today we could create a more sophisticated plane that is simpler for the pilot to use and have better numbers than the A-10. This would be a good alternative because the prime contractor on the A-10 is Lockheed Martin with Northrop Grumman helping them out with the wings. This shows that two major contractors can work together on something and for this new A-X plane they should again since they have worked on the A-10 and know its flaws. The new A-X could be something like the F-35 (see Figure 1) and the Osprey (see Figure 2) but be geared towards the close air support role. In that it becomes a new inventive aircraft taking things from helicopters and jets and utilizing them for this role. This would help the A-X in every aspect of its mission. It would be able to land anywhere in the battlefield with the ability to hover, so it can follow the troops and support them better. Since it could land and be fueled by the convey it is protecting, so at no point will it have to leave the primary battlefield if necessary. With being able to hover/move slowly over the battlefield it will be able to put weapons on the target with more accuracy like the attack helicopters of today. This ability also helps the A-X if it is given the mission of a Forward Scout for the military like the A-10 has been given in past operations. Than with having jet characteristics also it could be strong enough to be able to handle all the necessary weapons for any of the targets it might have to take our while out on a mission. Also it will have the speed of a jet which is good when you have an emergency call and need to be somewhere in a hurry to protect the troops. With the combination of a jet and helicopter the new A-X will be the plane of the future for the close air support aircraft like the F-35 and Osprey have become the planes of the future in their respected fields.

Another alternative for the A-10 and the close air support aircraft is one that the military has looked into in the past before. This is to take an existing jet since there are no other planes like the A-10 in the military at the this time. This alternative calls for a jet to be modified to become the next A class plane to replace the A-10. The jet would be one that is already in active duty and has a long life expectance for its body and other aspects of it. It would be a navy jet because these jets are already designed for short take offs and landings since they have to land on aircraft carriers. With this in their design the jet engines in them already are designed to not have to put out much thrust at times so the jets can make the turns necessary to do several passes over a target before the target has the time to move or maximize it's defenses. This has worked okay

10 | P a g e

in the past for the Air Force before the A-10. With the new technology in the fighters of today they will be able to do the job of close air support better than those of the past. Also the weapons of today are already more accurate than those of the past so there isn't that need for so many passes over a target to destroy. Also the weapons are able to fire from far away so fast fighter jets are able to destroy the targets instead of needing to be slow and find the target at close distances.

This is an alternative to the whole close air support project not just an alternative to the aircraft that is used for it. The alternative is to hand this part of the military operation over to the Army from the Air Force. This is a huge alternative since it will change the whole concept and the parts of the project. With this the Air Force would not have control over the aircraft needed for this part of the operation much like the Navy and their planes. Of course they will still play the same role in the battle plans of the operation and have to be under some sort over sight by the Air Force. This is because the Air Force, Navy, and Army would have planes in the air and someone needs to keep track of them so that missions are not over lapped and that there is safety in the skies over the battlefield. The Air Force would be like the air traffic control of the battlefield knowing where all the planes where at one time and their missions. This might sound a bit too much and that the Air Force should just have control over all planes but this alternative is a good thing. The Army has already wanted to have control over close air support in past since the Air Force was not doing a good job of it in the past. They already have control of their helicopters that do the same role as the A-10 on some missions, so why not have total control over all close air support missions. With this control they don't have to go through another branch before the mission can be okayed. With this ability to control the planes they will know where all the planes are at a any time and be able to send them out at any given time. Also since it is the Army that these planes are protecting they should know the concepts of the Army and if the Army controls them and trains the pilots they will. This will prove effective on the battlefield as the pilots will know how the troops and vehicles will react to different things that the pilots do. Effecting every mission for the better and helping to minimize the friendly fire and unwanted civilian causalities. Another thing with being under Army control the planes will be in the same communication network as those on the ground helping the planes communicate with those they are protecting and getting the fire missions from. This is would be a major alternative and will take time to go into effect if put in the motions but will benefit all aspects of the close air support part of the military operation on the battlefield.

The last alternative for the A-10 is to keep advancing on the design of it. This is what is going on now with the new variant of the A-10C. As time as gone by technology has advanced and helped with achieving and maximizing the requirements of the close air support aircraft. With this alternative we keep the A-10 in its role that it is in now and

11 | P a g e

add on to it. The general design of the A-10 is a great one and only needs to be strengthened in spots to extend its life. Though what it needs are new technology in several different places to help it with its mission, due to the out dated systems on board the plane. One of these needs is a new communication network where it has direct contact with the ground forces so that it can maximize its effectiveness on missions and immediate support of troops. Another would to be advance its engines to where it could have faster speeds but yet still be able to achieve the slow speeds needed to do its small radius turns. Though at the same time keep or better the ability to take off and land on short dirt air strips. This is a fast and cheep alternative since the A-10 has proved its self to be a formidable plane on the battlefield and has no reason for it to be replaced before its life is over.

These are all alternatives to the problem of a close air support aircraft that is needed on the battlefield for any military operation that goes on anywhere in the world. The close air support aircraft is just like any other system as has its alternatives to what it has already in effect. Just like any other system to with advances in technology alternatives for the system develop more and more. For the alternative to the A-10 this is to true with the advances in technology it has changed and more alternatives have become more reasonable. Each alternative has its plusses and negatives to them it is for the system engineers to help make the right decision on what alternative to make at the time. Everything is a constraint to a systems engineer including time and technology advancement of the time. Sometimes the alternatives are just not available at the time because the right technology is not available at the time for it to be an effective alternative. Another thing that we as system engineers must keep in mind when designing a system is the design criteria and when choosing an alternative to the system it is no different they have to follow the same criteria. Just the criteria might have changed a bit to help solve the main problem in a better way seen from the system that is already in effect.

Key Decision Criteria:

With many different alternatives to the problem of the close air support aircraft we will use the decision/design criteria used to design the A-10 and new ones that have come up from analyzing the A-10. For every alternative to the A-10 the plane or aircraft must meet all the general requirements of the A-10 and improve on them. The alternative must also be able to be finically acceptable for the military, so in reality be affordable for the tax payers. It must also be able to be implemented fast enough to take over for the A-10 so that there is no gap in the missions and support.

12 | P a g e

To start off the parameters that the aircraft must meet are the same as the A-10 but better them. To start off the plane must be able to carry more weight since it has to carry several different ordinances to do its mission with success against several different types of targets. So its payload capacity has to 8,000 lbs or greater. Then the other part of the close air support mission from destroying many different types of targets is to be able to support the troops on their missions the aircraft has to be able to stay over the battlefield for a long time. For this the required loiter time at a radius of 200 miles is 2 hours. Since the aircraft has to support the troops on the ground it has to be able to have time to see and obtain the targets before it passes over them. This results in the aircraft needed a minimum maneuvering speed which needs to be 120 knots or slower at lower altitudes. Though it does need a slow speed for it be able to support the troops on the ground it needs to be able to get to the troops fast from its bases of operation. The top speed of the aircraft needs to be faster than the A-10 so the max speed needs to be 600 knots or faster. With these speeds the aircraft will be able to achieve its goal of being a close air support aircraft but to be an effective on it needs a small turn radius to be able to do many passes of the battlefield to maximize its role. For the radius of the alternatives to the A-10 they need a turning radius of 1,000 feet with full combat weight of the heaviest ordinances. The other major thing of the alternative to be even considered is the ability of the aircraft to take damage and keep flying. This is due to the fact that the A-10 is probably the toughest aircraft ever created being able to take so much damage and not only keep flying but keep fighting with little maintenance needed on it. Another thing that has been really important and has proved the worth of the A-10 is its ability to keep fighting and flying with damage done to it. This needs to be a key requirement of any close air support aircraft in that they are so close to the ground at times that they are going to be hit by enemy fire of all kinds.

With those general requirements of the aircraft its self the technology of the components inside of the aircraft its self. The A-10 has many out dated components inside of it that need to be upgraded. A decision choice that is another major one is a good communication network since this was an issue with the design and the system of a close air support aircraft as a whole. The pilot needs to be able to communicate easily with those on the ground because those are the ones they are supporting and protecting from the air. Also the ground troops are usually the ones that are calling in the targets for the planes to it, so they to have communication with those calling the actions. Good communication with the ground is also a priority because of the closeness between the aircraft ant them so we are not wanting any friendly fire due to not knowing where the troops are because there is no good communication.

With all these needs for the alternatives to be even considered another decision choice that comes into play each one is the finical ability of each. At any time money is always a concern but in the time we live in now it is an even bigger one with the

13 | P a g e

economy still not doing good and tax payers not wanting to pay any more for something to replace something that already is pretty much working in their eyes. With that the financing of each of the alternatives is a major decision criteria when choosing the alternative to the problem.

Just like the time we live in effects the financing decision criteria it also effects the choice of the alternative in the way of the availability of resources and technology of each of the alternatives at the time we are in. Yes an alternative might be something that is great and the best one to replace what is in affect at the time but the time we are in does not allow it to be possible due to the availability of the technology or the resources. Though the thing we must take into consideration when dealing with this decision criteria is will this alternative be available in a reasonable future for us to consider it. As a system engineer we must take everything into consideration that is why our job it so hard. We are not only an engineer but also must be a business man to make the right choices.

With these criteria's in mind we must apply them to each of the alternatives and judge them against each other in how each one meets the criteria's compared to the other alternatives. We can't just place the alternatives against each other but also the criteria's against once another to figure out which one helps the resolve the problem best to make a better choice overall on which alternative to pick. With each alternative we must analysis them each for flaws and positives. We did this with the case study to come up with these alternatives so we must to the same to make the best decision in which to pick. In picking one it must be the best one that is related to the problem statement of the whole system.

Alternatives Analysis:

With the decision criteria stated above we are now going to compare our alternatives to them and then against each other to find the best alternative for the close air support aircraft.

We will start off with the attack helicopter alternative to the A-10 for the spot as the close air support main aircraft. Yes the helicopter can carry a lot of the payload needed to execute the missions but it can't hold as much as the A-10 or other planes can. It can carry the necessary ordnances for the missions just not as many as the planes so either more helicopters will be needed or multiple rearming will need to be done to achieve the same thing as the planes. Next on the criteria is the speeds of the helicopter it can easily do the low speeds it can even hover over the battlefield which is better. This is better because it has time to find the targets and accurately place the right weapon on the target. Though for the max speed the helicopter falls short compared to the planes. With these speeds though it is still able to do the combat radius

14 | P a g e

of 200 miles but can't converse the distance as fast as the jets. Also with the low speeds/hovering it can do the small turn radius, actually it can turn on the spot. Another thing it is able to do well is the liter time in that since it can be stationed at forward bases it is close the battles and has enough fuel to stay in the combat radius for longer for 2 hours. Also since it can land pretty much anywhere that has a bit of clearing it can be fueled by a truck with the ground troops making its loitering time even longer. Though it has advantages the helicopter has one big flaw in that it has a few true weak points that can put it out of commission of down the aircraft. The ability of the helicopter to keep flying with damage is okay if its propellers are not damaged. In the basic requirements of the aircraft the helicopter is an okay alternative to the A-10. Though where it exceeds is with the communication with the ground forces. This is due to the fact that the attack helicopters of today are under the control of the Army already. With this they have direct contact with the troops on the ground making it easier for them to support them. Like the good communication the attack helicopters has up to date technology. With state of the art night vision and targeting systems in the HUD (heads up display) of the cockpits. Though even though with this better communication and up to date technology it might not be truly finically possible for the alternative. This is due to the fact that it might take more helicopters to be able to do the same mission as one A-10 due to the fact of not being able to carry the same number of weapons during a mission. With an attack helicopter costing close to the same as a A-10 this just doesn't seem to make it an alternative though there are advantages that can't be ignored that the helicopter has over any plane.

The next alternative on the board is drones taking the spot of the close air support aircraft. Drones are starting to do more and more ever military operation and seem to be the wave of the future for every part of the military. Due to the fact of them taking the human being out of harm's way, which is a big positive for this alternative. This is because a price tag cannot be put on the life of a human being and people are willing to spend the extra money at times to protect the life of our soldiers. Now to get into the actual criteria and how they compare to them. First off the payload of the drones a bit limited due to the fact of their size and engines that are on the drones of today. Though these drones can be outfitted with any of the different weapons that are need for the missions of the close air support aircraft. Yes they will not be able to carry as much as a single true aircraft can but with that several can become a squadron and complete the mission. With the multiple drones in the air and doing different aspects of the mission the mission could have better success in the end. The drones will be able to meet both of the speed requirements. Due to their sizes they will be able to do the turn radius even sharper than the planes can. Also due to their size and weight they can take off from shorter air strips. This will allow them to be deployed at the forward most bases which usually have small dirt landing strips that many planes cannot land on. Also because of its size and weight the drones of today are able to achieve the combat

15 | P a g e

radius and loiter time needed for the close air support aircraft. Though were their size hurts them is the ability to keep flying with damage done to them. With the drones being fairly new to the battlefield they are fitted with the most up to date technology. Actually themselves are just prove of the advancing technology on the battlefield and where the military is headed. With them being controlled by someone on the ground they are close to those ground troops that they are there to support. With the pilots being on the ground and more than likely at the base of operation for the ground troops they have direct communication with the troops on the ground. Though drones are a great advancement in technology they are still new technology which makes them expensive. With the need of a squadron of them to be able to do the same thing as an A-10 the price of this alternative would be much greater than that of the A-10's already in the field. With them still being fairly new the technology and resources for them to be mass produced is also technically not available at this time but could be in the near future. With this stated is there a price we can put on the life of the pilot flying these missions. With the drones the pilot could never be in harm's way and technically fly the plane from a base inside the United States anywhere in the world. That is the question we have to ask ourselves when considering this alternative.

The next alternative is the most time consuming because it will have to create a whole new aircraft for the new A-X aircraft to take over for the A-10 in the near future. The new A-X plane will have to be designed from the ground up so it can become anything it wants to. Though the general concept of the plane will be that like the F-35 Lightening II and the Osprey. They take the concepts of helicopters and jets and combined them together to achieve the best fit of the two for the respected fields that they are in. The new A-X plane will do the same. It will use the concept of new jet engines that are able to rotate from horizontal to vertical to allow for hovering and regular flight in the same plane. Or it can use the concept like the F-35 Navy variant that has jet engines then has another propeller system that opens up when it wants to hover and also uses the rotating jet engine to help it hover and maneuver. Both of these technologies are available and have shown their abilities in different new planes for the military. With this ability with jet engines the new A-X will be able to obtain the max speed needed and with the new engines of today can do better than the 600 knots needed. Than with the new technology of the rotating engines it will be able to take the advantage of hovering from the helicopters. This means that it will not only be able to do the minimum speed need for the close air support aircraft but also be able to hover. Which in tells means it gets the same advantages as the helicopters in being able to hover and sight the target. With this the new A-X it will take away any advantages that the helicopter had over planes and use its self. So with this ability to obtain the slow speed the A-X will be able to do the sharp turn radius and even be able to turn on spot like a helicopter. Just like the helicopter the A-X will be able to have a long loiter time since it will be able to land in a clearing and be able to be fueled by a truck on the

16 | P a g e

ground. Than with its speed of a jet on its side it can do the combat radius easily and be able to respond to any need with great speed. As you can see the new A-X is an amazing plane that takes the best parts of a jet and helicopter and puts them together into one out standing aircraft. Though there are planes already like this plane out there in the military already it will take some time to develop the right system to work properly for the close air support role needed here. This new A-X can use the same huge 30-mm Gatling gun that is used in the A-10 now or even a newer one. Since it is being developed as a whole new plane a new anti-personal/anti-vehicle gun can be developed with it like with the A-10 development. This is new technology but is available for mass production since the F-35 and Osprey are being produced as we speak and have full squadrons of them already in the services. So the technology is there and has already proved in the battlefield that it can be used and is useful. The design will have to be different than both the F-35 and the Osprey but the concept will be the same. The new A-X will need to be designed to be damage resistance like the A-10 is. The body of the A-X will characteristics from the A-10 so that it is able to fly with damaged parts like the A-10 is today. Yes this will be a whole new plane so the costs at first will be a bit high to research and design a whole new plane design. Though in the end the cost of the new A-X will cost close to the same per plane as the A-10. So it will be a more advanced A-10 that is able to replace it for about the same price and be able to still do the same role as the A-10 but better.

The next true alternative is to keep the A-10 and keep changing and adding to the design of it. The plane is able to achieve the speeds needed of a max of 550 knots and minimum speed of 150 knots. The thing is with advancing new jet engines we would put a new engines in the A-10 for it to have the ability to go faster and maybe slow down to slower speeds. With the faster speeds the Air Force will be happy since they have always been wanting a faster jet to get to the battlefield faster. Also with faster speeds it would be able to fare better in a air to air battle with other aircraft. Than with the slower speeds it maneuver better which means that it can have a smaller turn radius. This slower speed will help in being able to acquire the target on the ground better and faster. With that the pilot will have more time to be able to more accurately deploy the right weapon onto the target he has acquired. Also with a smaller turn radius The A-10 will have the ability to do more runs over the target area in less time. All this adjustments with the speed will help the missions of the A-10 have better scores and have better success. The A-10 of today has structural concerns in the wings so the new A-10 will have to address these concerns and be able to keep the ability of the planes payload capacity. The A-10 is able to carry all of the weapons it needs for any given close air support mission. It is able to carry many of these different weapons at the same time, making it the impressive and feared plane that it is. The technology for all these upgrades is out there already and used on planes already we would just be fitting the A-10 with all of them. Like a better communications network to talk to the ground

17 | P a g e

forces on the ground. Also a better night vision and firing system would be added to the HUD of the cockpit. With all this technology already out in the field the cost of them is not bad the cost would come in the ability to be able to go out to every A-10 out there in the field and retro fitting them with all the new technology and repairs. The other thing is that all this new repairs and technology does not guarantee that the A-10 will be able to extend its life span or even be able to make it to its life extensity of 2028. Though it is an alternative to the aging A-10 fleet with it falling behind the rest of the military and if it does the missions of the A-10's will suffer too.

The other alternative is not a true alternative to the plane in a sense but a alternative to the whole close air support project and its part in the military. This alternative would give control of the close air support division to the Army instead of the Air Force. With this the Army would have control over the aircraft and the mission that are in the close air support battle plan of any military operation. The Army already has experience in this with their control of the attack helicopters. So they have already proved their experience and ability to run close air support missions. Also with them being the ones running the missions on the ground they will have the ability to better communicate with the planes in the air. Which is one of the major choice criteria of the close air support aircraft. Also with them know better of what is on the ground the vehicles that the plane will be facing they will have the knowledge of how to outfit the planes best with weapons for that operation. Another thing is if they train their pilots with the knowledge of the Army they will better know how the troops and vehicles on the ground will react to any attack that pilots perform in the air. With all this the missions will have better success and less probability of friendly fire. Another thing with the Army knowing more of what is going on the ground and what they need of support they can create a better A-X plane or retro fit the A-10 to be better. Also they would be the ones best to pick the next best alternative for the close air support aircraft. With Army taking over it won't take away from any of the requirements for the plane it will actually probably help them. With the Army taking over the control of the close air support division they will know more of what they will need to support them better. With this new knowledge the requirements for the plane may change for the better. This alternative can happen at any time since there is no new technology needed to do this. Just it will take time for the whole division to transfer from Air Force to the Army. The Army either would have to take over the bases with the infrastructure that houses the A-10 and all the necessary components that are needed to run the close air support division. To save time and money on this alternative the people in the close air support division that have knowledge of the system will be transferred under the Army. This will help keep the division as what it is and the success of the missions in ongoing operations and future ones. Instead of having to train new Army officials in all the information needed. With this the new Army officials will be able to learn on the job and be able to take over the job after awhile. Though this is just a transfer of roles and responsibilities it will still

18 | P a g e

cost the military some financing to do this. Even though this alternative will have another cost to it in the end it will have great advantages over keeping the Air Force as the prime over the division of the close air support aircraft.

With all these alternatives being a possibility and be able to keep the mission of the close air support aircraft a successful one we have to compare them against them self's to find the best choice.

When it comes to the speed of the aircraft all the alternatives are pretty close to each other. Though the helicopter falls short behind the jets maximum speed to be able to get across the battlefield fast. The others are all about the same in being able to achieve the required maximum speed or greater. Now with the minimum speed is where the alternatives start to separate from each other. The helicopter and the new A-X design are able to do better than the minimum speed in having the ability to be able to hover over the battlefield. With the others they are able to achieve the required minimum speed. Than with these speeds the turn radius of the alternatives is the same as their minimum speed. In that the helicopter and the A-X are able to hover they can turn on the spot and all the others are able to achieve the turn radius or better. With the speeds of all the alternatives and their different designs all of them are able to achieve the combat radius needed of 200 miles easily. Then also they are able to achieve the needed loiter time in the combat radius of 2 hours. Where two of the alternatives take the advantage over the others is the ability to land in any clearing and be able to be refueled by a truck that could be with the ground troops. These two alternatives are once again the helicopter and the A-X design of a new aircraft. Though where these two split apart when it comes to the ability to carry the needed weapons for the missions of the close air support air craft. The jets of the alternatives have the abilities and the payload capacities to carry many of the different types of weapons that are needed for all the different targets the close air support aircraft has to be able to take out on any mission. The helicopter and drones fall short in this category. They can't carry as many of each weapon so multiples of each would be needed to be able to do the same thing as one of the alternative jets. With the characteristics and requirements for the close air support aircraft of each of alternatives compared against one another we start to see a leader in the alternatives this is the new design of the A-X jet.

Now for the other choice criteria's for the close air support aircraft. All of the alternatives are going to have a better communication network with the forces on the ground. Though the attack helicopter and Army take over have a definitive advantage over the others. With these two the Army controls the aircraft so there is a direct line of communication between the aircraft and the forces on the ground. With the other alternatives yes they will have a better communication network but they will still be controlled by the Air Force so they will have to go through the Air Force before being able to communicate with the Army forces on the ground. For the ability to take damage

19 | P a g e

from ground forces and being able to fly the alternatives and spread out on this one. Probably the best is the keeping the A-10, it is a remarkable air craft when it comes to this, it has the ability to take damage like no other plane and keep flying and doing missions. For the other alternatives it is way different. For the attack helicopter it has many vulnerable spots on the aircraft that can be hit and put the helicopter out of commission or down it right there and then. The drones are just as vulnerable as the helicopters due to their size but also their size helps them maneuver to be missed by weapons. Than with the A-X design it will concepts from the A-10 design to be as damage resistant as the A-10. Though since it will be have to be developed there is no knowing of how great this part of it will be, but it will be close to the abilities of the A-10.

Next for the availability of the technology and resources of the various alternatives. With the attack helicopters there are already some in the military today and play a important role and being advanced just like the jets of the Air Force. So the aircraft are already available with up to date technology already in them and proving their worth on the battlefield. Than with the drones is another story yes there are drones out there today but they don't do anything like what the A-10 does yet. There is still some advancement needed in them to be able to be a considered alternative to the A-10 in the near future. Than for the A-X design the concept of the type design of the plane has been around for awhile and in last decade has become a real thing on the battlefield. The A-X can take parts of the F-35 and Osprey to get the design started, but the rest of the plane will need to be designed to fit the mission of the close air support aircraft. Though it will take some time to design and produce all the technology and knowledge needed to is there today just needs to be put towards our problem. With keeping the A-10 all the technology and ability to do the repairs is here today and is available to be done to the fleet. Last for changing the prime of the division of close air support to the Army all of the needed technology and knowledge is there just with the Air Force instead of the Army. This would need to be transferred over to the Army.

The last and probably most import choice criteria for these alternatives and any system in general is the finical ability to fund them. This is more important today with the state of the economy and our government budget. The A-10 and close air support division already takes up a chunk of these so the alternatives have to be able to have to have the positives to overcome the extra expenses. Also they have to be reasonable for the military for them to invest into the thought. First off with the alternative of the attack helicopters taking over for the A-10's is actually pretty finically acceptable do to the fact they are already in the action in the military. The Air Force would just need to accrue the helicopters from the Army and put in for more of them to be produced. Next for the drones this is a project that would take a lot of money to accomplish. This is due to the fact that new drones would need to be researched and designed to do the mission and then produced in large quantities to be able to do the same thing as one A-10. For the

20 | P a g e

A-X it would also cost quite a bit since it would be a whole project too needing the research and designing of a new air craft before it could be built. The other alternative of keeping the A-10 is also finically acceptable since all the technology and repairs are already being done and are in the budget. The thing though is the ability to do this to the majority of the fleet with the budget given to it. Last the alternative of switching over control to the Army would not need to be that expensive due to the fact that military already has everything it needs for the division. The only thing that would need to be done would be to change the hands of who has control of these needs.

From the comparison of all these criteria's we can see that the alternatives have the positive and negatives to each one. The thing is how do this positives and negatives compare to the others and to what our problem needs now to fix it.

Recommendations:

After analyzing the alternatives and comparing them against the criteria and one another I started to see what I think would be best for the problem of the close air support aircraft. The keeping of the A-10 and repairing is not the way we want to go it has life span and repairs are never the best so unfortunately its going to come to a close. Than with the drones the technology is just not there yet for them to be battle or finically reasonable to consider being an alternative right now. I do agree with the alternative of giving the Army control of the division of the close air support aircraft. The advantages of them having control over them are something I think is needed for the division to become even better on the battlefield. With all that said that leaves us with only two alternatives of the attack helicopters and new design of the A-X.

Both of these of these alternatives have great advantages that are similar to each other and either one would make a good alternative to the A-10 and the close combat aircraft needed. The attack helicopters would be the cheaper way to go but then A-x has the advantages of a jet over the helicopter and has all the advantages that the helicopter has too. Yes I know that we are in a tough economic time right now but I believe the A-X is the right way to go with the alternative to the problem of the close air support aircraft. This is due to the fact the A-10 has a life until 2028 so there is plenty of time to research and develop the next generation of it. Instead of going with something that is already in the battlefield and doing its role. If we were to go to the helicopters what would happen to the missions that they do now. While the A-X project is going on the A-10 and the attack helicopters keep doing their missions and roles. Than when the project is completed the new A-X can take over both of their missions so in effect retiring two different aircraft. Which will help the military in only need to fund one aircraft instead of funding two like is now.

Action and Implementation Plan:

21 | P a g e

With the recommendations that I have made my plan for the close air support aircraft is to take two of the alternatives and use them together to better the division and mission of these planes. I will be taking the alternative of giving the Army the control of the division and the new design of the A-X. With the combination of these two alternatives the close air support will achieve things that it hasn't in the past and will be better than ever.

The implementation plan would to first turn over the control of the division to the Army before the project of the A-X is started. This is due to the fact I think that the Army will know better of what it wants in the aircraft. They will know what they need to improve on from the A-10 so their system engineers should be the ones to get the project on the A-X. To do the exchange from the Air Force to the Army. The Army will gain control of the storage facilities that the A-10 is in and then control of all the other A-10 jets. The army will also will get placement in the Air Force bases where the A-10's are at, at first. Than the Army will get control of some of the decommissioned Air Force bases across the nation or Air strips will be added to some of the Army bases across the nation. These new bases will become the headquarters of the close air support division of the military where the attack helicopters and A-10's will be stationed. The personal that are directly working in the division in the Air Force will stay on in the division during the transfer and new Army people will learn from them. This is so that the A-10's will be able to still perform to their maximum.

Now with the new A-X plane once the Army has taken over control of the division than that is when the project will start. First off the Army will get a group of systems engineers to do the research and design of the A-X. In the research face look at the A-10 and make sure that the new A-X is able to do everything the A-10 can but better. The major thing that needs to be determined is the way the A-10 is able to fly and fight through damage. This is the greatest accomplishment of the A-10 and needs to be carried on to the A-X. Then also the research team will need to take the concepts of the F-35 and Osprey and use them for the design. This needs to happen because the combination of a helicopter and jet plane are what make the alternative of the A-X the choice I think is the best. From the this research and the same choice criteria used above the Army system engineers will create a new list of performance parameters that the new A-X must meet and what is desired. With this new set of parameters it will be sent out to the top aircraft contractors for them to create their own designs for an aircraft that will follow the parameters or better. They will be given six months to get their design s completed and sent into the Army for comparison. The comparison will be over the parameters and how to stand up to them, the production possibilities by the contractor, the technology needed for the plane, and the cost of the plane. The top three designs than will be chosen to build a prototype that will be in a fly off with the other prototypes to find the best one for the A-X. The one that does the best in the fly off will be chosen

22 | P a g e

for the new A-X plane and at that time given a true A-number. Production will start on the new A-X plane and the first squadrons of them will be sent to bases for new pilots to learn the new plane. This part of the plane will last a year for the pilots to learn the new plane and its abilities. After this first year each squadron will start to replace the squadrons of A-10's and attack helicopters. This will go in steps so there will be A-10's, attack helicopters and A-X's out on the battlefield at time. Until all of the A-10's and attack helicopters are replaced over time. This whole replacement will happen before 2026 two years before the designated life span of the A-10. This is my general plan to bring in the alternative of the Army and the A-X into effect in the U.S. military.

This plan is a lot like the way that the A-10 was designed and developed. I want to use a similar method because look at what happened with the A-10 yes it had its issues but an outstanding aircraft came out of it. With the issues that we saw and I stated above we learned the ways to do this method better and what not to do. First off the system engineering aspects of the plan need to be taken seriously. The communication between the contractors and the system engineers of the Army needs to be better so that all the needs of the Army are met. Also better investigation of the contractors and the designs that they submit needs to be done. Also the system engineers of the contractors need to understand the parameters that are set forth for them in that those are the ways that the customer (Army) wants the problem of the close air support aircraft fixed.

Exhibits:

Figure 1:

23 | P a g e

Figure 2:

24 | P a g e

References:

25 | P a g e

A-10 Thunderbolt (Warthog), United States of America. Retrieved fromhttp://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

Air Force Center for Systems Engineering. (2007) A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) Systems Engineering Case Study. Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright Patterson AFB OH.

Boeing A-10 Thunderbolt II. Retrieved fromhttp://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/support/maintenance/a10/

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

F-35 Lightening II. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35.html

F-35 Lightening II. Retrieved from https://www.f35.com/ MV-22 Osprey. Retrieved from

http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equipment/aircraft/mv-22-osprey V-22 Osprey. Retrieved from

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/rotorcraft/military/v22/ V-22 Osprey. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22.htm

26 | P a g e