Your welcome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YktOuoqA-I#t=411
Printable View
Your welcome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YktOuoqA-I#t=411
Very cool but a bit much on fuzz outs. Always loved that plane.
Too much blurred-out, kinda ruins it.
A-10 fighting ISIS
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/
A-10 Thunderbolt II is one of my favorite combat aircraft. I don't think there's anything better for ground attack and close air support.
http://youtu.be/zpaUzVUxEA4
Nothing quite like designing a gun, then building a plane around it...
Definitely one of my favorites
Thanks for the vid. Watched it while in bed. Good stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
May be apocryphal but I remember a story from the 80s where a reserve colonel in an A-10 took on a F-15 in air-to-air and won -- cocky young pilot in his Eagle hadn't reckoned on the Warthog's ability to turn. It's an amazing airframe; what we need is a real replacement that builds on its strengths, not trying to substitute a regular jet for its role. I thought the AF was ridiculous when they tried to retire it in the 90s and claimed they could use F-16s to do the CAS/TAS job. Also, takes real cojones to volunteer for a job whose estimated lifespan was 10 minutes in combat under a Fulda Gap scenario.
Excellent video, and it's 17 years old! Personally, I think the A-10 should only be replaced with NEW and improved A-10's! They should be put back into production, they definitely fill a niche role and do it better than anything else ever could.
The original airframes were suffering stress fractures. There was a program to reinforce the airframes that was referred to as "Hogging Up". The planes can be around for a while.
If you want to talk about aged aircraft still used in the inventory, the B-52 is probably unmatched. It was introduced in 1952 and is still in use, expected to be in service until 2045.
http://youtu.be/MxqNYeiyvHA
I don't have one of those in my garage. [Coffee]
That was the A-16 program. It failed due to the 30 cal cannons heat burning up the jet. The heat was literally too much for the airframe to take. A-10's are taught to circle when engaged there by allowing them to use a tap of the rudder and their cannon to ward off attackers. The same technique was utilized by the N Vietnamese when attacked by groups of US fighters. An A-10 beating an Eagle in Air to Air would probably warrant a new call sign for the Eagle Driver.....also desk duty. The fundamental design of the A-10's wing is to fly slow and and turn tight....its square.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
A-16 - was that an F-16 with the GAU-8 gun mounted in a belly pod? I remember hearing about those, but never heard any more since. When I moved to Syracuse in 1987 the NYANG Boys From Syracuse flew A-10's, saw them over central NY frequently. But then they changed to F-16's, that's when I heard about the tankbuster version coming about, but never saw one.
I believe it was an internal 30mm cannon. The Airforce was desperate to get rid of the A-10's and they came up with this idea. It just wasn't structurally sound and was burning up the a/c internals. If it had worked there's a good chance the A-10 would be in the desert now given the time frame of the program.Quote:
Originally Posted by rondog
Scuttlebutt I heard was the AF was desperate up until the Army said if we didn't want them, they'd take the Warthogs and put some NCOs in them ...Quote:
Originally Posted by RMAC757
Frankly, I considered the A-16 proposal to be embarrassing as it showed the AF wasn't serious about CAS/TAS (just as our Army brethren alleged). The F-16 airframe doesn't do low-and-slow very well and I tend to doubt it would have the battlefield durability the A-10 has proven.
From what I here that did happen. I've even met some Army Aviators who claimed to be in the pipeline for the A-10 at one point. The Viper is a great platform but it's not built for low and slow. Your spot on with the A-10 being designed for the Fulda Gap. It's sole purpose was to destroy tanks and be expendable. For the life of me I can't figure out why the AF can't think more dynamically and realize that "We already have that aircraft" rather than building another one. Part of me thinks that the SU-25 getting shot down like Pheasants in a ditch ( Ukraine, Chechnya ) is playing into this. They want to fight a war that doesn't exsist ( for us) with stealth and speed. For the time being, we're gonna keep 260 I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
The A-16 30mm gun was belly mounted... 4 barreled and vibrated the aircraft so badly it was completely inaccurate and would likely shake the airframe to pieces.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html
There were blocks of the F/A-16 that did use the Pave Claw Pod (GAU-13) but the main program focused blocks had the main gun internalized on the left side. "This project failed because the 30 mm gun would heat up and senge( I think they meant singe) the inner components of the left fuselage". The cannon was mounted on the inner left side of the aircraft. Trust me on this one. There was more than just one program involving the F-16 to replace the A-10. Several concepts were tried out on the Viper, including the Gau-13 cannon on a pod which was actually deployed and was a miserable failure. It was akin to the make shift Suu-23 pod on the F-4 (which was more successful ) they used during Vietnam. The more dedicated version was not meant to use a pod Attachment 53417. Notice the cannon on the left side. In my opinion the A-7 would've been a better option for a problem that didn't exsist. The Air Force Brass has not or ever will love the A-10. Their latest threat is that their won't be enought mechanics to maintain to main the A-10 and F-35 fleets. One way or another they'll probaby get their way one day. A good buddy of mine at work, Former Marine Hornet driver, current A-10 Guard driver said it the best " No better way to kill a 19th century terrorist than with a 19th century airplane". I think that was meant as a compliment.Quote:
Originally Posted by clublights
and yes I am a nerd with airplanes.
There is still a segment of the AF that thinks everything needs to be a sexy jet or the pilots won't get laid. [facepalm]Quote:
Originally Posted by RMAC757
Funny because I think the only AF jobs more macho than what the A-10 drivers do are PJs (not an officer job) and the kind of unarmed spotting the OV-10s used to do. All three jobs take/took some huge brass cojones. At the end of the day, you're right, the AF brass who hate the Warthog will eventually get their wish if for no other reason than the inability to sustain the platform long-term.
OTOH, the Warthog job is precisely what I had in mind in SOS when I said some of our aerial jobs could be done without placing pilots' lives at risk (yeah, I was very unpopular with most of the flyers although there was one Eagle driver who was intrigued). One "out of the box thinker" in our last seminar in the Blue Bedroom grabbed the mike in response to my question and said that was an engineers' wet dream (much hooting by the flyers who were awake). 4 years later, it was official doctrine in AF Vision 2025 ... [facepalm]
Lucky enough to have cousin who is one [Para] He is worn out though...apparently they are very short in terms of numbers. I know guys who did Iraq deployments in the A-10 and spent the their searching for IED setups. It seems a drone woulda been more purposely suited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMAC757
You mean the standard cannon port of EVERY F-16 made ??
Attachment 53445
I grew up an Air Force brat ..... Near Nellis And Hill AFB's ... I kinda have been studying fighters since I was old enough to hold the books in my own hands...
I hope he meant 20th century airplane...
Sent from my electronic leash.
Yes, that is the same gun port that is on every F-16 ever made....but it was a different gun, a 30mm cannon as apposed to the standard 20mm Vulcan. The belly prodded GAU's were deployed on over 20 aircraft and encountered severe stability problems. They flew missions in Desert Storm. The ( block 16's I believe ) A-16 test production variant only had 2 models created before it was scratched, both were based at Shaw. Like I said earlier, there wasn't just "one" variation. The production included a strengthened wing structure along with the 30mm cannon. There was only one dedicated production model. The heat from the 30mm burned the aircraft "internals". That is why it was stopped. We probably have a lot in common if your into fighter/fighter history.Quote:
Originally Posted by clublights
No....he said 19 century sarcastically. I think he didn't care for it compared to the Hornet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMAC757
Well thats simply because the Bug is better then the Viper
Tho Viper Drivers make better bands ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335GdTqtyLs
"Wish I had gas just like a mud hen ".......Love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by clublights
Congress authorizes $577 billion in U.S. defense spendingQuote:
The measure bars retirement of the A-10 Warthog close air support plane, beloved by ground troops because of its ability to fly low and destroy enemy tanks. The Air Force wants to retire the fleet to cut costs and retrain maintenance personnel to work on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Too bad the congress critters baring of retirement of the A-10 has nothing to do with protecting troops as much as it has to do with keeping money flowing in home districts.
Mmmm ... where are you getting this from? It's not like the A-10 is being produced anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by clublights
The A-10 is better suited to CAS to protect our guys on the ground. The F-35 on the other hand has been a tremendous waste of money.
Maybe we could just buy the Chinese copy of the F-35. I mean, they stole the plans and we know it flies since they did a demonstration when Obama was there.
A-10 bases are not F-35 bases .... so if the airmen move to F-35 bases for training there will not be personnel and the money they spend at the former A-10 bases .Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
That's so thin I could use it for a window. When we roll out new aircraft to replace existing aircraft with the same mission, the new aircraft go to existing units while the personnel are upgraded to the new platforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by clublights
I understand the desire to be skeptical of Congress but sometimes they really are interested in things like preserving capabilities that work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Except it is not thin in the slightest ..
Current A-10 Bases:
Davis Monthan
Moody
splattering of ANG's
First 3 F-35 bases :
Hill
Eglin
Burlington .
Davis Monthan
If you don't think politics plays into that you don't remember the BRAC of the 90's that had nothing to do with saving the pentagon money and everything to do with keeping bases open in home districts.
so...decide it by a head to head competition, 2 A-10s vs 3 F-35s, UNDER 1500 feet. Then the A-10 can be put back into production because there will never be an equal to the Hog in CAS.
I read they are going to try an A-10 for weather/storm chasing. Probably a good platform and ready to take a beating.. http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uplo...1402848012.jpg
The A-10 would smash everything in sight, the F-35 would turn the lights out and shut down enemy defenses. I can say this, there is no way they will reopen the A-10 line. Most of the airframe tooling probably doesn't exsist anymore. The airplane will unfortunately be retired eventually. The airplane is extremely effective against a third world nation but wouldn't last long against someone with modern air defenses. The Sniper and LITENING pod brought it about as far as it can go. The AF wants to move in the direction of Cyber fighting with up linked data. The A-10 doesn't fit that role. Sad, but it's been a tried and true warrior.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackford76
And as sad to say I agree. The biggest thing in my mind is that nothing strikes fear into the enemy and nothing other than the A-10 boosts morale to the troops on the ground. I see us fighting the third world threat for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by RMAC757
Just the sound of one brings big smiles to troops on the ground. It is just one of those intangibles that is understood by many but they do not make the case. The biggest point that a few had the balls to say it was when the Army said "if you don't want it we will take it" years ago. Some forget that it used to be the "Army air corps"
Just thought from an old guy that loves the A-10.[Flower]