Author Topic: A-10  (Read 1389 times)

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
A-10
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2004, 12:24:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Murdr
The Army has turned down the idea many times.  They would rather have rotory wing gunships that dont require a hardtop airfield.


Wrong. Army cannot do fixed wing due to congressional order. Only the Af has the option on fixed wing combat ops.

Unfortunately it seems several brass hats in the AF forgot (IMO)  that they have a mission to support ground ops as well as A2A and strategic bombing.

A combination of attack helos and hogs would be a nasty package to field.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
A-10
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2004, 01:41:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
Wrong. Army cannot do fixed wing due to congressional order. Only the Af has the option on fixed wing combat ops.
 

Funny, the GAO suggested it as part a cost saving strategy in 1998, the down side was GAO said drop the comanche it wouldnt be needed if they had a-10s.  Does that still make me wrong?

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
A-10
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2004, 02:59:04 AM »
lol maverick, thanks for the motive to do some reading, because I knew the GAO wouldnt have suggested something that was banned by federal law.  
your statement is not entirely correct.  congress established the reorganized and new departments, and put it on the sec. of defense to:
 "but not to merge these departments or services...to eliminate unnecessary duplication in the Department of Defense...to provide more effective, efficient, and economical administration in the Department of Defense; to provide for the unified strategic direction of the combatant forces"

Historically if the services  wanted to shift responsibilities, the affected services would have to agree with each other first, before DOD would consider it.  for instance when the army took on Close Air Support with the rotary-wing AC, DOD enacted the agreement between the army and airforce as policy, and that agreement left nearly all fixed-wing CAS to the AF.

The other part of the GAO proposal was that the AF would have to scrap their f-16 attack squadrons.  This would be consistant with The National Security Act of 1947.  If the Army would take on in effect all of the CAS mission, the AF could not provide a duplicate service.  The GAO would not let the AF retask their f-16s to a fighter role, so they did not like the idea either.  However, the idea appearently started with the AF indicating to the GAO that they would be willing to give the A-10s to the army.


:)

Offline AKCasca

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 129
A-10
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2004, 07:59:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
Driving past the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson I have seen the number of hogs stored there dwindle noticably. There are definately fewer there now than a couple years ago. I can't believe the AF is STILL considering scrapping them since they have nothing that can do the close air job as well as the hog can.



Now that is depressing Maverick,  doesnt seem that long ago I was crewing A-7s and watching the first of the A-10s come in there. I really was happy when I got moved over to working on those, sooo much easier and cleaner too. fricken flying hydraulic leak the Corsair was.

Offline seabat

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 150
A-10
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2004, 09:43:47 AM »
Paint them gray, nail a hook to its butt, and give it to the Marines.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
A-10
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2004, 09:55:12 AM »
One of the greatest procurement successes of the the cold war.

Offline Krusher

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
A-10
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2004, 09:56:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by seabat
Paint them gray, nail a hook to its butt, and give it to the Marines.


BAT !!!!  long time no see :)


one of theses days you need to post your c-battery story, it is a classic

Offline Dnil

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 879
A-10
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2004, 10:19:59 AM »
going off memory here but I think it was the key west agreement that states the army wont fly armed fixed wing aircraft.  The mowhawk in vietnam had to stop shooting rockets because of it.

Offline Reschke

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7724
      • VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
A-10
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2004, 10:41:14 AM »
Personally I think the AF shouldn't move their attack capability over to the F-16. I remember it being called the lawn dart or something along those lines. Even though the F-16 is a good looking aircraft it wouldn't be my favorite to have to carry ordinance on an attack mission. Give me an F-15 or A-10 any day

Isn't the F-16 limited by its air intake being so close to the ground on the taxi while the A-10 with its higher engine mounting has a little more flexibility in operating surfaces?
Buckshot
Reschke from March 2001 till tour 146
Founder and CO VF-17 Jolly Rogers September 2002 - December 2006
"I'm baaaaccccckkk!"

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
A-10
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2004, 12:36:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by seabat
Paint them gray, nail a hook to its butt, and give it to the Marines.

The Marines I spoke with said that they'd take 'em in a heartbeat for all the obvious reasons, but that back in 97 it was determined that they wouldn't fit through the hangar doors on amphib carriers (which they did test landings and takeoffs from) without modifications that would take away a lot of what makes the A-10 great while costing a buttload of money they didn't have.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Saintaw

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6692
      • My blog
A-10
« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2004, 12:42:45 PM »
Most interesting thing I saw about the A10, is the female pilots... saw one of them when I was at a show in Belgium with Deselys a few years ago... she was something to look at.

Female pilots...*drooool*
Saw
Dirty, nasty furriner.

Offline SFRT - Frenchy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5420
      • http://home.CFL.rr.com/rauns/menu.htm
A-10
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2004, 01:02:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Murdr
The Army has turned down the idea many times.  They would rather have rotory wing gunships that dont require a hardtop airfield.


Russians have their SU25s under the Army command.
Dat jugs bro.

Terror flieger since 1941.
------------------------

Offline T1loady

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 174
A-10
« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2004, 01:19:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reschke
Personally I think the AF shouldn't move their attack capability over to the F-16. I remember it being called the lawn dart or something along those lines. Even though the F-16 is a good looking aircraft it wouldn't be my favorite to have to carry ordinance on an attack mission. Give me an F-15 or A-10 any day

Isn't the F-16 limited by its air intake being so close to the ground on the taxi while the A-10 with its higher engine mounting has a little more flexibility in operating surfaces?



Just a few comments from the peanut gallery here..  The F-16 is a great air to ground (A2G) aircraft.  We use them for FAC and Misty missions now. The big advantage is speed and the ability to defend it self.  However with the single engine and the number of SAM/AAA sites seen on the modern battlefield the A-10 is a much better choice.  The A-10 maneuvers very well at slow airspeeds which gives it the ability to get into the “trenches” and see what it is shooting.  The types of training varies greatly between the “Viper” (F-16) pilots and the “Hog” pilots. Where the F-16 is a multi-role aircraft, the only thing the A-10 does is ATG/close air support.  Another item that make the A-10 such a great aircraft is its ability to operate from just about any air strip that even a C-130 can get into.(distance is an issue though)  I think it needs about 5000 feet to get off the ground with a light weapons load.  It can even hot rearm and refuel. The engines are placed high and apart on the aircraft to that if one is hit by a threat the other has a much better chance of not being fodded out by damage from the other.  The pilot is protected be a titanium “bathtub”. All in all both are very capable aircraft and don’t worry about seeing the A-10 going away anytime soon.  Judging by the briefings that I have attended over the last few years, the Hog isn’t going any ware..

SkipNutz
« Last Edit: June 08, 2004, 01:21:24 PM by T1loady »

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
A-10
« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2004, 01:19:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rafe35
That's true about what you said about A-10 and F-51, but A-10 seem too dangerous than F-51 and one of engineers said that If .22 bullet hit the engine, it would blow up and probably the pilot would never get chance to bailed out(Said on History Channel).

I think you misunderstood what the guy was saying.  He was talking about the conventional jet aircraft designs before the A-10, where the engine and the fuel were both in the fuselage.  The A-10 engines were mounted far apart and away from the fuselage to avoid setting fuel on fire in the event of an engine throwing a blade.

ra

Offline Reschke

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7724
      • VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
A-10
« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2004, 02:39:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by T1loady
Just a few comments from the peanut gallery here..  The F-16 is a great air to ground (A2G) aircraft.  We use them for FAC and Misty missions now. The big advantage is speed and the ability to defend it self.  However with the single engine and the number of SAM/AAA sites seen on the modern battlefield the A-10 is a much better choice.  The A-10 maneuvers very well at slow airspeeds which gives it the ability to get into the “trenches” and see what it is shooting.  The types of training varies greatly between the “Viper” (F-16) pilots and the “Hog” pilots. Where the F-16 is a multi-role aircraft, the only thing the A-10 does is ATG/close air support.  Another item that make the A-10 such a great aircraft is its ability to operate from just about any air strip that even a C-130 can get into.(distance is an issue though)  I think it needs about 5000 feet to get off the ground with a light weapons load.  It can even hot rearm and refuel. The engines are placed high and apart on the aircraft to that if one is hit by a threat the other has a much better chance of not being fodded out by damage from the other.  The pilot is protected be a titanium “bathtub”. All in all both are very capable aircraft and don’t worry about seeing the A-10 going away anytime soon.  Judging by the briefings that I have attended over the last few years, the Hog isn’t going any ware..

SkipNutz


Thanks for the information there SkipNutz. Like I said personally I wouldn't want to be driving an F-16 through an area of the battlefield. Speed is one thing but survivability is another matter altogether.
Buckshot
Reschke from March 2001 till tour 146
Founder and CO VF-17 Jolly Rogers September 2002 - December 2006
"I'm baaaaccccckkk!"