Two U.S. aircraft are being flown into the ground and need rebuilding. I am talking about the B-52 and the A-10
The B-52 (ole BUFF) is ancient, being over 50 years old. The latest date from the 60's they have been rebuilt several times but not the important part; the engines. The 52 turbo fans date from the 60's and much more powerful efficient engines are available. My idea is, yank off the double engine nacelles and scrap them; replace them with any of the almost new engines now available due to the scraping of DC-10's and 747's. These engines are much more efficient, powerful (50,000 lbs versus 16,000) parts are in stock and fuel requirements are lower. After all, the 52 is supposed to be kept in service for another 40 years. An engine change would mean longer range, more load carrying ability, and cheaper to operate.
The second is the A-10 warthog. The hog has always been under powered ( I remember scraping one and it's pilot off the walls of red Rock canyon for that very reason). Much more powerful engines are available that uses less fuel. This would allow a heavier payload.
The A-10 is also a good candidate for upgrading with a full night flight suite of equipment. an A-10 that could fly all night just waiting for a rat to poke his head from his hole would be very useful.

P.S. I wonder why no other country has ever purchased the A-10?

I thought the A-10 was being scrapped in favor of the F-35.

P.S. I wonder why no other country has ever purchased the A-10?

There was Australian consideration, but that was very short lived when the choice was made to just keep the F-111 and F/A-18

au contraire, the A-10, brainchild of Franklin C. Spinney of "the Spinney Report" fame, and Pierre C. Sprey of the same association, has proven itself to be one of the best airplanes in terms of survivability and sheer air-to-ground superiority. It could do with some updating, I'm sure, but it's an excellent ground attack aircraft.

Originally Posted by deerslayer

au contraire, the A-10, brainchild of Franklin C. Spinney of "the Spinney Report" fame, and Pierre C. Sprey of the same association, has proven itself to be one of the best airplanes in terms of survivability and sheer air-to-ground superiority. It could do with some updating, I'm sure, but it's an excellent ground attack aircraft.

Not to menton the combat record it's racked up in such a short period.

The A-10 is without a doubt the best aircraft of it's type in the world for all of the reasons listed previously.

As for replacing the engines on the B52 with engines of three times the thrust. Would this be practical, would the airframe be up to it? Engines delivering three times the thrust probably use four times the fuel, what would this do to the range. They have done a magnificent job in time of need, but it may be time to just start again.

Originally Posted by senojekips

The A-10 is without a doubt the best aircraft of it's type in the world for all of the reasons listed previously.

As for replacing the engines on the B52 with engines of three times the thrust. Would this be practical, would the airframe be up to it? Engines delivering three times the thrust probably use four times the fuel, what would this do to the range. They have done a magnificent job in time of need, but it may be time to just start again.

The engines would be replaced on a one for one basis but a one for two.. depending, it could have one double or two single nacelles. I would imagine that the engines would use less fuel as they are more modern and efficient.

I think the A-10 is a too specialized type of aircraft. Not many countries can afford to put all that money into an airplane who's only reason for being is cracking open tanks.
Yeah I know it's excellent for CAS but you know how air forces feel about that role.

Several years ago, a Thunderbolt-Driver and I sat blowing cigar smoke over whiskey-shots at each other. He'd flown during Desert Shield/Storm, and not only loved his flying shootin'-iron, but also loved the unique "club" of which he was a proud member. Yes, the old blaster could probably use some up-grading, but not too much. Like my late old man (a Hooligan-Navy Chief), used to say; "If at ain't broke, don't fix it."

Even new engines are in the works that would provide a dramatic performance and maintenance improvement. General Electric is marketing the 4,400kg thrust GE TF34-101 turbofan as a replacement engine for the existing 4,218kg thrust GE TF34-100 turbofans. The engines, for example, will be an engineering challenge. Any difference in weight between a new engine and the current engine will mean a change in the center of gravity and require a shift and/or addition of ballast. Likewise, because of the location of the engines, any additional thrust will add to the already significant nose-down moment. Therefore, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to the operators to find that the new engines will likely be detuned to approximate the current thrust, but will last almost forever because they will never be operated at the high end of the operating temperature range.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../a-10-life.htm