Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Murdr on June 07, 2004, 07:06:21 PM
-
Was watching the History Channels show on the warthog. Good show. The footage of Gulf War A-10s that made it back with huge amounts of damage were quite impressive.
The thing that really surprised me was that there were only 721 of them made, and only 367 in active service. I had no idea.
I live 12 miles from the 'impact area' range that serves all A-10s from the eastern seaboard. I see pairs of them practically every day. They fly over in combat spread on the way in, and close formation on the way out. The 30mm vulcan cannon impacts can be heard from over 20 miles away depending on the terrain.
When I was a mortar gunner years ago, I used to get a front row seat on the attack runs. Basicly the live fire ranges were shut down for about 90 mins when the A-10s were scheduled. Often they would start their dives partially inverted for a good view of the target. Even at the edge of the impact area it is very hard to hear the actual report of the gun because the impacts are 10 times as loud. It sounds like a hyperactive jake brake. Even with the 12 miles and 800 ft mountain between the impact area and my house I can hear when they are at "the Gap" (Ft Indiantown Gap) if the tv isnt turned up too loud.
Anyway, now that I know how few of them there really are, the next time they fly over, I can appriciate how lucky I am to see them in action.
-
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.
-
What was really weird was at the WWII Weekend last weekend. They had a P-51D racing a Warthog, the 51 kept up easily. I have to dig out the picture I took of it.
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
What was really weird was at the WWII Weekend last weekend. They had a P-51D racing a Warthog, the 51 kept up easily. I have to dig out the picture I took of it.
The A-10's top speed is right in the 51's neighborhood.
-
Originally posted by Rino
The A-10's top speed is right in the 51's neighborhood.
Seem that any propeller fighter(WWII) can shot down A-10 :p
-
No, they can SHOOT it, but don't assume they can shoot it DOWN. :D
Those babies are armored something fierce.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
No, they can SHOOT it, but don't assume they can shoot it DOWN. :D
Those babies are armored something fierce.
Blah! I betcha if one the 50 cal machine guns hit the A-10 engine and blow up! :D :p
-
I wonder if any thought was given to turning them over to the Army? Ground support would be right up their alley? Yes?
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
What was really weird was at the WWII Weekend last weekend. They had a P-51D racing a Warthog, the 51 kept up easily. I have to dig out the picture I took of it.
I was there :)
(http://awo.jasminemarie.com/albums/album05/aau.sized.jpg)
must have been too busy gawking at the P38 to see that race, lol.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
I wonder if any thought was given to turning them over to the Army? Ground support would be right up their alley? Yes?
The Army has turned down the idea many times. They would rather have rotory wing gunships that dont require a hardtop airfield.
-
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.
They need F-51D back and they did really good job in Korean War for Ground Supporter like US Navy/Marines F4U Corsair.
-
The Army has turned down the idea many times. They would rather have rotory wing gunships that dont require a hardtop airfield.
They should rethink that one. Helo don't seem to be holding up well in defended areas. Would think you need something like the A-10 to soften up the area first.
-
A-10s have taken shells of calibers much larger than .50 to the turbofans and still made it back. On the other hand, put a rifle round in the radiator of the P-51D and see if it comes back.
There's no point in having a CAS plane be too much of a fast mover, unless you've got the latest in sensor-fuzed munitions and stuff.
-
Well, the 111th Fighter Wing at Willow Grove NAS manages to get at least four up each weekend in formation. During the week it's just two ship flights.
They used to have the Green and Brown 'Euro' camo but now it's a kind of Gray. Could just be my eyes....
-
Originally posted by Dinger
A-10s have taken shells of calibers much larger than .50 to the turbofans and still made it back. On the other hand, put a rifle round in the radiator of the P-51D and see if it comes back.
There's no point in having a CAS plane be too much of a fast mover, unless you've got the latest in sensor-fuzed munitions and stuff.
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).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
:)
-
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.
-
Paint them gray, nail a hook to its butt, and give it to the Marines.
-
One of the greatest procurement successes of the the cold war.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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*
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Chairboy wrote:
"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."
Geez, a hacksaw, a couple of gate hinges and latches from Home Depot, instant folding wings!
Seriously, I had heard the same results about the feasibility study. Its a shame that the plane was designed using one point of view and prior to the latest Joint Services thought process.
Howdy Krush!
-
Originally posted by Dnil
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.
The Johnson-McConnell Agreement of 1966 actually. Some critics are now saying that it is out of date, and that a new doctrine between army/af needs to be hammered out. The key issue is that it is possible that air-to-air helo gunship battles could develop. "freedom of action in the air" is the AFs responsiblity, however DOD has been funding the Armys capiblilty to perform helo to helo combat for years. Johnson-McConnell short sightedly divided the army/af roles based on equipment, rather than their missions.
-
i looked it up again, the key west agreement of 48 is the foundation of no fixed wing attack aircraft in the army.
edit to clarify, at least dealing with the mowhawk. around 1965 the stink started with the AF as to the CAS role, the AF saying it violated the 48 agreement. Around 65/66 they again redifined their current roles. This said no more armed mowhawks could be made, but they were still used in "self defense" roles.
Aint politics grand.
-
A little off-topic, but speaking of Mohawks and A-10s...airshow coming up here at Campbell on the 19th. Both types will be there, along with others. For those interested in learning more:
http://www.campbell.army.mil/pdf/Week_of_Eagles_2004.pdf
-
The a10 is designed as an anti tank aircraft equipped with a 30 mm gataling gun which fires in excess of 3500 rounds per minute.
The A10 is manufactured by Fairchild Republic and is considered to be a light attack bomber.
It weighs 24,960 lbs empty and has a max weight of 50,000 lbs.
The A-10 is 53' 4" long and has a wing span of 57' 6" which makes it very large for a single pilot, fighter type aircraft.
It is powered by two General Electric TF-34 producing 9065 lbs of thrust with a total combined thrust of 18,130 lbs. The warthog has a maximum speed of 518 mph and a cruise speed of 345 mph.
Maximum speed at sea level is 420 mph.
-
The plane is essentially built around the gun. Here's a handy picture for comparison:
(http://hallert.net/images/a10arm-3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The plane is essentially built around the gun. Here's a handy picture for comparison:
(http://hallert.net/images/a10arm-3.jpg)
Kinda funny considering now the gun has become a secondary (at best) weapon. The maverick has become the weapon of choice.