A-10 Warthogs Could Serve Until 2040 - Page 2

Feuer Frei! · 07-24-11, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And of course "Get off my lawn!"

You'll be ok Steve:

Stealhead · 07-24-11, 12:38 AM

Back to the A-10 for a minute; I can fondly recall once while I was stationed at Ramstein AB in Germany driving along the flight line on some odd errand with an fresh from tech airman.We rode past two F-16s and an A-10 that had stopped over from Spanghlem AB which is where they sent all the F-16s that used to fly out of RA in 1993 RA and the A-10s from various bases in West Germany is mostly a cargo base now.RA is close enough to SP that it is used as a diversion base in case of weather or in flight emergencies.

This young airman had never really seen any combat aircraft up close before and wanted to stop so I agreed.There where three planes but only one pilot standing by one of the Vipers.So we ask him what happened to the others.

Turned out this captain had accidentally locked his canopy and well the "keys" are 60 miles away

so his wingmen left him to wait for the SP guards to show up which was taking some time.What was really funny was that this Viper pilot clearly envied the A-10 pilot said the Hog was a more fun plane to fly than the Viper and decided that he was going to request that he be assigned to one of the Hog squadrons when he got back to base. The young airman was surprised a pilot would prefer the A-10 to an F-16 or 15. I wonder if he locked his canopy on purpose in the vain hope that theyd simply assign him to Hogs seeing as he could not handle the complex nature of the Vipers egress systems.

Oberon · 07-24-11, 06:56 AM

Nice.

We used to get the Hogs over from the 81st TFW at Bentwaters and Woodbridge. I remember one banking low over my primary school, so low I could see the Warthog face on the side of the plane. It was a terrible shame when they all left in 1993.

Here's a couple of A-10 related shots from the Bentwaters Cold War Museum:

What an awesome plaque to be given, eh? Big salute to MSGT Robert D. Hale Jr

Platapus · 07-24-11, 08:05 AM

I think the GAU-8 qualifies as a BFG.

It is almost like General Electric built this gun and the Air Force told Fairchild "build an aircraft around this, OK?"

Oberon · 07-24-11, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

I think the GAU-8 qualifies as a BFG.

It is almost like General Electric built this gun and the Air Force told Fairchild "build an aircraft around this, OK?"

They pretty much did!

Stealhead · 07-24-11, 12:40 PM

No that is precisely what they did the A-10 was designed around the gun though the gun designers where told: design a gun for a CAS aircraft specifically for tank killing.So the concept for the A-10 was around yes but the gun was the first thing to be designed.

The chamber that fires the shells is in the dead center of the airframe which actually makes the rest of the gun not dead center it is slightly to the port side of airframe if you see a head on shot you can see this from other angles it is not as clear.Of course today the GAU-8 is hardly ever used to kill armored vehicles and more often to attack soft targets so the favored load out is more high explosive incendiary rounds and less AP.Of course that was the entire idea of the A-10C upgrades was to make the plane more capable in roles beyond tank busting which is not as much of a need at the current time.

I have always felt from when it was first shown publicly that the F-35 was a joke a freaking multi billion dollar joke.I guess that is related to this thread but the damn F-35 is really pathetic if you ask me.I mean the thing is crap what does it have that nothing else can do?Stealth ability at the cost of being a piece of dog ****?Ridiculous it is just a program to keep Lockheed in business.

krashkart · 07-24-11, 01:02 PM

Always enjoyed seeing or hearing the A-10's fly overhead when I still lived near a base. We always knew when a deployment was coming up, as the local news would report about it. In most cases that meant that the local PD would be a man short for awhile; one of their officers was a pilot, you see. Got a lot of respect for folks who choose those risky lines of work. They're comprised of far better and more courageous stuff than I am.

The canopy in Oberon's picture looks pretty beat up. Is there a backstory to that, or just wear and tear?

Raptor1 · 07-24-11, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I have always felt from when it was first shown publicly that the F-35 was a joke a freaking multi billion dollar joke.I guess that is related to this thread but the damn F-35 is really pathetic if you ask me.I mean the thing is crap what does it have that nothing else can do?Stealth ability at the cost of being a piece of dog ****?Ridiculous it is just a program to keep Lockheed in business.

Oh? What can't the F-35 do that the F-16 and F/A-18, which it is designed to replace, can?

It might not be worth the development cost and time, but the aircraft itself doesn't seem like a step backwards to me...

EDIT: Ah, should read the opening post. Didn't know the F-35 was supposed to replace the A-10 as well...

Stealhead · 07-24-11, 01:26 PM

I will say that it has much lower range,is less maneuverable,and has a much lower payload and would often have to carry some load out externally meaning that its stealth gets compromised half the time thanks to that.

Not going to get into a discussion about it beyond that as you obviously have posted nothing else in this thread and are clearly a big fan of the F-35 and are o the hunt so to speak not taking that bait just because you are a fan boy don't assume that others are

.

I am not saying stick to older technology I am saying develop newer better airframes not ones that only gain one thing at the cost of others when one can develop something that is much less of a compromise.

Oberon · 07-24-11, 01:30 PM

I think it was a Martin-Baker job, it was donated to the museum by a collector...not sure the precise story behind it. Next time I'm there I'll have a look.

Stealhead · 07-24-11, 01:34 PM

Well I can tell you that A1C Lott was one of the planes crew chiefs because you can see his or her name on the canopy.There likely is the rank and name of an NCO on the other side that would have been the lead crew chief.

Raptor1 · 07-24-11, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I will say that it has much lower range,is less maneuverable,and has a much lower payload and would often have to carry some load out externally meaning that its stealth gets compromised half the time thanks to that.

Not going to get into a discussion about it beyond that as you obviously have posted nothing else in this thread and are clearly a big fan of the F-35 and are o the hunt so to speak not taking that bait just because you are a fan boy don't assume that others are

.

I am not saying stick to older technology I am saying develop newer better airframes not ones that only gain one thing at the cost of others when one can develop something that is much less of a compromise.

Fanboy? Hunt? A bit early for baseless accusations, I think. All I did was ask a question and state my opinion on the aircraft. I even said it might not be worth the development time and cost...

From what I know the F-35 variants are supposed to have more range than the aircraft they are designed to replace, a similar or bigger payload when using external ordnance, and better maneuverability in certain cases (At least compared to the F-16). I could be wrong, of course, but that's only the fault of my information...

kraznyi_oktjabr · 07-24-11, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Fanboy? Hunt? A bit early for baseless accusations, I think. All I did was ask a question and state my opinion on the aircraft. I even said it might not be worth the development time and cost...

From what I know the F-35 variants are supposed to have more range than the aircraft they are designed to replace, a similar or bigger payload when using external ordnance, and better maneuverability in certain cases (At least compared to the F-16). I could be wrong, of course, but that's only the fault of my information...

Based on Wikipedia:
Combat radius/Ferry range:
F-15C: 1,061 nm (interdiction missions)/3,000 nm (with external tanks and CFTs)
F-16C: 294 nm/2,280 nm (with drop tanks)
F-35A: "over 590 nm on internal fuel"/ 1200 nm on internal fuel

Speed:
F-15C: hi-al Mach 2.5+ lo-al Mach 1.2
F-16C: at altitude Mach 2+ at sealevel Mach 1.2
F-35A: Mach 1.6+ (tested on Mach 1.53

Have to remember few things.
1. Its not clear (atlest to me) what is under F-15's wings/belly during interdiction missions? Are there any extra fuel tanks?
2. In case of speed it would be useful to know are those numbers got when aircraft is in clean configuration or with missiles, tanks etc. under wings?
3. You can always get figures favourable to your position. Its just matter of what you forget to mention... on your product or competitors.

07-24-11, 08:05 AM	#19
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,404 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I think the GAU-8 qualifies as a BFG. It is almost like General Electric built this gun and the Air Force told Fairchild "build an aircraft around this, OK?" __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

07-24-11, 01:02 PM	#22
krashkart Navy Seal Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,292 Downloads: 100 Uploads: 0	Always enjoyed seeing or hearing the A-10's fly overhead when I still lived near a base. We always knew when a deployment was coming up, as the local news would report about it. In most cases that meant that the local PD would be a man short for awhile; one of their officers was a pilot, you see. Got a lot of respect for folks who choose those risky lines of work. They're comprised of far better and more courageous stuff than I am. The canopy in Oberon's picture looks pretty beat up. Is there a backstory to that, or just wear and tear? __________________ sent from my fingertips using a cheap keyboard

07-24-11, 01:26 PM	#24
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I will say that it has much lower range,is less maneuverable,and has a much lower payload and would often have to carry some load out externally meaning that its stealth gets compromised half the time thanks to that. Not going to get into a discussion about it beyond that as you obviously have posted nothing else in this thread and are clearly a big fan of the F-35 and are o the hunt so to speak not taking that bait just because you are a fan boy don't assume that others are. I am not saying stick to older technology I am saying develop newer better airframes not ones that only gain one thing at the cost of others when one can develop something that is much less of a compromise.

07-24-11, 12:38 AM	#17
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Back to the A-10 for a minute; I can fondly recall once while I was stationed at Ramstein AB in Germany driving along the flight line on some odd errand with an fresh from tech airman.We rode past two F-16s and an A-10 that had stopped over from Spanghlem AB which is where they sent all the F-16s that used to fly out of RA in 1993 RA and the A-10s from various bases in West Germany is mostly a cargo base now.RA is close enough to SP that it is used as a diversion base in case of weather or in flight emergencies. This young airman had never really seen any combat aircraft up close before and wanted to stop so I agreed.There where three planes but only one pilot standing by one of the Vipers.So we ask him what happened to the others. Turned out this captain had accidentally locked his canopy and well the "keys" are 60 miles away so his wingmen left him to wait for the SP guards to show up which was taking some time.What was really funny was that this Viper pilot clearly envied the A-10 pilot said the Hog was a more fun plane to fly than the Viper and decided that he was going to request that he be assigned to one of the Hog squadrons when he got back to base. The young airman was surprised a pilot would prefer the A-10 to an F-16 or 15. I wonder if he locked his canopy on purpose in the vain hope that theyd simply assign him to Hogs seeing as he could not handle the complex nature of the Vipers egress systems.

07-24-11, 06:56 AM	#18
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Nice. We used to get the Hogs over from the 81st TFW at Bentwaters and Woodbridge. I remember one banking low over my primary school, so low I could see the Warthog face on the side of the plane. It was a terrible shame when they all left in 1993. Here's a couple of A-10 related shots from the Bentwaters Cold War Museum: What an awesome plaque to be given, eh? Big salute to MSGT Robert D. Hale Jr

07-24-11, 12:40 PM	#21
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	No that is precisely what they did the A-10 was designed around the gun though the gun designers where told: design a gun for a CAS aircraft specifically for tank killing.So the concept for the A-10 was around yes but the gun was the first thing to be designed. The chamber that fires the shells is in the dead center of the airframe which actually makes the rest of the gun not dead center it is slightly to the port side of airframe if you see a head on shot you can see this from other angles it is not as clear.Of course today the GAU-8 is hardly ever used to kill armored vehicles and more often to attack soft targets so the favored load out is more high explosive incendiary rounds and less AP.Of course that was the entire idea of the A-10C upgrades was to make the plane more capable in roles beyond tank busting which is not as much of a need at the current time. I have always felt from when it was first shown publicly that the F-35 was a joke a freaking multi billion dollar joke.I guess that is related to this thread but the damn F-35 is really pathetic if you ask me.I mean the thing is crap what does it have that nothing else can do?Stealth ability at the cost of being a piece of dog ****?Ridiculous it is just a program to keep Lockheed in business.

07-24-11, 01:30 PM	#25
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	I think it was a Martin-Baker job, it was donated to the museum by a collector...not sure the precise story behind it. Next time I'm there I'll have a look.

07-24-11, 01:34 PM	#26
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Well I can tell you that A1C Lott was one of the planes crew chiefs because you can see his or her name on the canopy.There likely is the rank and name of an NCO on the other side that would have been the lead crew chief.