The A-10 ain't dead yet!

JayhawkerJayhawker ModeratorPosts: 14,837 Senior Member
http://www.examiner.com/article/indiana-blacksnakes-and-their-a-10s-taking-the-fight-to-middle-east

Indiana Air Guard is sending a dozen Warthogs and 300 men to middle east. If this is the swan song for this warbird, I hope they make a lasting impression....
Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
«1

Replies

  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 6,945 Senior Member
    "Lasting" is the only kind of impression those things make. . .

    I think the A-10 is the B-52 of close air support. It is so good at what it does that it's exceeding hard to come up with a convincing argument to ground it.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 4,440 Senior Member
    They've been talking grounding the Warthog for years, but it seems that we keep getting into those situations where a protracted liberal dose of low and slow firepower simply can't be replaced by a well placed missile.

    If we picked our scrapes a little more judiciously, we could ground the 'hog. That's save about a millionth of a percent of our defense budget. Better planning....yep.....that's what we need.

    Mike
    Decisions have consequences, not everything in life gets an automatic mulligan.
    KSU Firefighter
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,267 Senior Member
    A-10's accomplish the same mission on today's battlefields that the A-1 Sandy did in Viet Nam, and the P-47 "Jug" did in WW II. Low, slow, armed to the teeth, and dang near bulletproof! Anything on the ground that really needs a good hammering- - - - -the warthog is the plane to call on!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • Big Al1Big Al1 Senior Member Posts: 7,010 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    A-10's accomplish the same mission on today's battlefields that the A-1 Sandy did in Viet Nam, and the P-47 "Jug" did in WW II. Low, slow, armed to the teeth, and dang near bulletproof! Anything on the ground that really needs a good hammering- - - - -the warthog is the plane to call on!
    Jerry

    That's why it's official name is the Thunderbolt II!! Great plane to work on, too. It sits high enough so you don't have to worry about hitting your nugget on a panel or pylon!!
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,354 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    "Lasting" is the only kind of impression those things make. . .

    I think the A-10 is the B-52 of close air support. It is so good at what it does that it's exceeding hard to come up with a convincing argument to ground it.


    And yet...:bang: There hasn't been a good idea yet that some idiot somewhere won't try to cancel or 'fix'.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 7,702 Senior Member
    But....................but.....................the new F35 is going to replace the A10 and will be far more effective at 'ground attack'.

    Here is what George Standridge said.

    George Standridge of Lockheed Martin predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters

    I mean....................its not as though he has a vested interest in saying that..............:roll:
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,903 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »
    But....................but.....................the new F35 is going to replace the A10 and will be far more effective at 'ground attack'.

    Here is what George Standridge said.

    George Standridge of Lockheed Martin predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters

    I mean....................its not as though he has a vested interest in saying that..............:roll:
    Standridge still has his point to prove; however, the A-10 is an attack aircraft not a fighter or fighter/attack A/c and it's past and present history is not a factor in F-35 effectiveness discussions.
    The same as you cannot compare an A-6 to a F-4.

    But, I agree that we need the A-10 and probably should build more of them.
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    http://www.examiner.com/article/indiana-blacksnakes-and-their-a-10s-taking-the-fight-to-middle-east

    Indiana Air Guard is sending a dozen Warthogs and 300 men to middle east. If this is the swan song for this warbird, I hope they make a lasting impression....

    The A10 is the finest marriage between air craft and mission ever designed. It's a product of minimal political intrusion into its design. It was designed from the ground up around its GAU-8 Avenger 30mm Cannon, not some senator's midnight deals with Lockheed Martin.

    A10's get on station quicker than Apaches and lay absolute WASTE to enemy troops and vehicles. It is the single most effective airborne force multiplier in the arsenal.

    The F35 is a sick, sad joke. The A10 will always be king.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • Dr. dbDr. db Senior Member Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    This is the trial of our times. People who say, "Let's throw out the good (or even great) because of the POSSIBILITY of a pie in the sky utopia."
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    NN wrote: »
    Standridge still has his point to prove; however, the A-10 is an attack aircraft not a fighter or fighter/attack A/c and it's past and present history is not a factor in F-35 effectiveness discussions.
    The same as you cannot compare an A-6 to a F-4.

    But, I agree that we need the A-10 and probably should build more of them.

    They run about $16 million each... An F35...is what...8 or 9 times more? And sucks.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • Six-GunSix-Gun Senior Member Posts: 7,226 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »
    But....................but.....................the new F35 is going to replace the A10 and will be far more effective at 'ground attack'.

    Here is what George Standridge said.

    George Standridge of Lockheed Martin predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters

    I mean....................its not as though he has a vested interest in saying that..............:roll:

    Wow - that's a SERIOUS overisght if he wants us to ignore devlopment costs to make a financial statement of "value" when it comes to the F-35!
    Accuracy: because white space between bullet holes drives me insane.
  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,327 Senior Member
    Don't worry boys....time to test the F-35 in close support/ground attack situations will come, and if it fails in that role, it will "only" cost U.S. soldiers' lives to show it, and even then "experts" and "politicians" will blame anything to justify their decisions :roll:
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    Antonio wrote: »
    Don't worry boys....time to test the F-35 in close support/ground attack situations will come, and if it fails in that role, it will "only" cost U.S. soldiers' lives to show it, and even then "experts" and "politicians" will blame anything to justify their decisions :roll:

    Well those tiny wings on the F35 make low speed passes a thing of the past. It has to fly about 80kts faster than the A10 so it won't stall. AND it can only loiter on station for about 30 minutes. Hope dude's quick on the trigger..

    ETA: Oh and if that wasn't stupid enough...

    A10 - 30mm Cannon with 1200 rounds...

    F35 - 25mm Cannon with 180 rounds!

    The F35 would have to rely on dropped ordnance to support troops and that payload is lightweight at best.

    The F35 makes me so angry.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,267 Senior Member
    Sort of reminds me of another "do everything" plane that came up short of expectations- - - -the F-111! What a cluster-flop that one was!
    :vomit:
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,837 Senior Member
    Yeah...makes perfect sense to replace a flying tank with a fiberglass sports car....I wonder how well that thing will stand up to Triple A....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,052 Senior Member
    And in other news the F-22 flew its first combat missions this week...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,243 Senior Member
    I saw a post the other day, and it read something like the following:

    20 years after its inception and 70 billion dollars in overrun later, the F22 finally flew it's first mission last week.*

    *numbers pulled out of my rear because I can't remember the exact figures but the point is made
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,052 Senior Member
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    And in other news the F-22 flew its first combat missions this week...

    Other than the sham that is stealth, the F22 makes. More sense because it is not advertised as a "do all" aircraft. It's mission statement is far more defined and realistic. It stays above 15,000 and blows crap up. Not too hard.

    The F35 is just garbage.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    I saw a post the other day, and it read something like the following:

    20 years after its inception and 70 billion dollars in overrun later, the F22 finally flew it's first mission last week.*

    *numbers pulled out of my rear because I can't remember the exact figures but the point is made

    There exists a lot of irony here. Back in the 1990's and early 2000's the Comanche helicopter project was conceived, fed money and eventually scrubbed, why? Cost was prohibitive to the expected results and stealth is a scam. Apache is still a viable and effective platform and the USMC is operating with aged, but updated and effective AH-1 Cobras. Why pull those birds?

    The A10 is an older design, but it's damn effective. F35 is designed plain and simple to funnel money into Lockheed Martin for some damn reason. No other reason. It could have easily been scrubbed like Comanche, but no.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,052 Senior Member
    How do you figure stealth is a scam?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    The P-51 when first designed and built was meant to be a reconnaissance and tactical air craft. It was ok for that but with the help of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine it turned out to be much more. Sometimes planes are designed with one purpose in mind but end up being better at another.

    Every so often a plane comes along that can do several things well. The P-47 is one of those as was the F4U Corsair.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • USUFBUSUFB Senior Member Posts: 830 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    There exists a lot of irony here. Back in the 1990's and early 2000's the Comanche helicopter project was conceived, fed money and eventually scrubbed, why? Cost was prohibitive to the expected results and stealth is a scam. Apache is still a viable and effective platform and the USMC is operating with aged, but updated and effective AH-1 Cobras. Why pull those birds?

    The A10 is an older design, but it's damn effective. F35 is designed plain and simple to funnel money into Lockheed Martin for some damn reason. No other reason. It could have easily been scrubbed like Comanche, but no.

    My parents were Army officers, and somewhere, my dad picked up a futuristic poster of a Comanche. I hung it on the wall in my bedroom when I was in elementary school. That was 15-20 years ago.
    Sometimes, I lie awake in bed at night wondering "Why the heck can't I fall asleep?"
    NRA Life Member
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,052 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    The P-51 when first designed and built was meant to be a reconnaissance and tactical air craft. It was ok for that but with the help of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine it turned out to be much more. Sometimes planes are designed with one purpose in mind but end up being better at another.

    Every so often a plane comes along that can do several things well. The P-47 is one of those as was the F4U Corsair.
    Actually the P-51 was designed for the RAF as a fighter all along. The Merlin engine allowed it to be the superior bomber escort that it was.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,267 Senior Member
    The original design for the P-51 was for a low to medium altitude aircraft with an Allison V-12 engine. Retrofitting it with the more powerful Rolls-Merlin made it a faster platform capable of high altitude combat. The Allison worked well in other planes such as the P-39, the P-40, and the P38 (counter-rotating twin engines) but it couldn't quite equal the Rolls for high altitude work.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,809 Senior Member
    How do you figure stealth is a scam?

    Just guessing here. But if a F22 is flying low 'n' slow enough for proper ground support, then any stealth capability it has is pretty much going to be useless. If the enemy can visually see it, then they can attempt to hose it down with .50 cal. and up. The A10 can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'; I don't think the F22 can absorb the punishment the A10 does. And the A10 carries more 30mm, and has all those wing hardpoints to hang ordnance to make their target explode like confetti.

    If the F22 is flying high, like at 10,000 feet or above, the pilot is going to have a hard time seeing what he's shooting at; the A10 low 'n' slow in the grass can see what is going on, and obliterate it with authority.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    The original design for the P-51 was for a low to medium altitude aircraft with an Allison V-12 engine. Retrofitting it with the more powerful Rolls-Merlin made it a faster platform capable of high altitude combat. The Allison worked well in other planes such as the P-39, the P-40, and the P38 (counter-rotating twin engines) but it couldn't quite equal the Rolls for high altitude work.
    Jerry

    Having grown up with a man that piloted one, all this was common knowledge in our home. I grew up reading several books about the Mustang. My dad and his cousin used to "Discuss" the attributes of the P-51 vs the P-38 at length over adult beverages. My dad flew mainly the D model Mustang and his cousin flew the P-38, not sure which model of it. It was very boring to a 5 -15 year old kid, but I wish I could roll the clock back and listen now.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    The original design for the P-51 was for a low to medium altitude aircraft with an Allison V-12 engine. Retrofitting it with the more powerful Rolls-Merlin made it a faster platform capable of high altitude combat. The Allison worked well in other planes such as the P-39, the P-40, and the P38 (counter-rotating twin engines) but it couldn't quite equal the Rolls for high altitude work.
    Jerry

    The problem with the Mustang at low altitude such as in combat support and strafing missions was that liquid cooled engine. A Thunderbolt or Corsair had a more reliable air cooled radial and could absorb nicks and scrapes from flack and small arms fire usually, where one relatively minor hit on a Mustang in its engine, radiator, or coolant lines could spell disaster. Sometimes it was a long way back to the Channel and friendly territory.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    Actually the P-51 was designed for the RAF as a fighter all along. The Merlin engine allowed it to be the superior bomber escort that it was.

    But with the Allison it was a rather lackluster performer at altitude above about 15,000 feet. The two stage supercharged Merlin allowed it to perform very well up to at least 25,000 feet or more.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Big Al1Big Al1 Senior Member Posts: 7,010 Senior Member
    The F-22 is also capable of dropping smart bombs, JDAMS, but I don't think it would be a good choice for ground support, but it can do low and slow, but in a nose up attitude, not usefull for staffing!! A former co-worker works in an F-35 Sq. at Eglin and it's not ready for prime time. He's in a Marine Sq, too.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.