Subdeacon Joe Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Well, Hogs can, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Careful, now... it might be considered politically incorrect to use pigs against certain enemies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Careful, now... it might be considered politically incorrect to use pigs against certain enemies.... They never seem to complain for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Read the A-10's dayz are over-- LG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michigan Slim Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I watch the Air Guard here in Fort Wayne fly over most of the week. I aint far from the base. Them darn things is scary -an they aint after ME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Read the A-10's dayz are over-- LG Not yet. It has a lot of people in the House fighting for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I thot the AF wanted the hot rod fighters but the Marine Corps wanted the Hog for ground support. I can't think of a better use for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I thot the AF wanted the hot rod fighters but the Marine Corps wanted the Hog for ground support. I can't think of a better use for it. It will be interesting to see if the Army or Marines don't try to take them over if the Air Force tries to do away with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original Lumpy Gritz Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Not yet. It has a lot of people in the House fighting for it. GOOD-Have a son who is still alive, thanks to A-10 ground support fire. LG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 No doubt about it, they can bring some smoke on yer a$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The Air Force thinks its job is air superiority and strategic bombing. A-10 ain't good at either. It thinks the Army and Marines have closer ties with their own troops and speak the same language. Not to mention that ground support is a much more dangerous and lethal mission. I don't remember the exact figures but in desert storm something like 90% of the Air Force aircraft hit were A-10's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I remenber sitting just below the crest of a hill , in Germany one year on REFOGER , think it was Carbine Fortress drinking a BEER , when a couple of em , made a tree top level pass DANG near , spilled my BEER CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Why don't we lube bullets with pig lard anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 GOOD-Have a son who is still alive, thanks to A-10 ground support fire. LG I was combat arms in the Army, I have a very healthy appreciation for them. I have talked to a few guys that have been glad A-10s were there when they needed them. I'm glad they were there for your son as well. I quickly looked for, but could not find, a recording of an F-15 pilot (I believe) saying that the situation on the ground was not good, and that some A-10's were needed, because fast movers couldn't get the job done. Also, here is about the best article I have seen on the subject. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-10-warthog-is-bu-1562789528 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The Air Force thinks its job is air superiority and strategic bombing. A-10 ain't good at either. It thinks the Army and Marines have closer ties with their own troops and speak the same language. Not to mention that ground support is a much more dangerous and lethal mission. I don't remember the exact figures but in desert storm something like 90% of the Air Force aircraft hit were A-10's. what were the stats on surviving the hits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 what were the stats on surviving the hits? Very high I don't have the stats available but in the high 90% category as I remember. They are tough birds made for the job they do and I don't think we lost more then two or three of them. A great aircraft and I don't agree with the Air Force position on them but then the Air Force neglected to ask me what I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Balz, SASS#46599 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The A 10 is a perfect example of an air craft design for a specific purpose, air to ground combat. Straight wings for low and slow flight armor around the cockpit , system redundancies, the ability to loiter for long times and awesome fire power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Balz, SASS#46599 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The A 10 is a perfect example of an air craft design for a specific purpose, air to ground combat. Straight wings for low and slow flight armor around the cockpit , system redundancies, the ability to loiter for long times and awesome fire power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 From an article on the A-10: When you're hunkered down behind a sliver of cover taking heavy fire, there is no more reassuring sound than the twin engines of the A-10 Thunderbolt screaming in from the distance. That's what you think anyway, until you hear the 30mm Gatling gun that can pound out 3,500 rounds per minute at the guys trying to kill you. Then you know the most reassuring sound you'll ever hear. The A-10 is an old plane, that continues to provide massive air support to ground troops with that cannon and missiles that can take out a main battle tank in a single shot. Sometimes old is good. See the pics - including an A-10 ventilated tank: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-is-the-toughest-most-ferocious-aircraft-in-the-skies-2012-8?op=1#ixzz35OgaMyL8 LL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elk Creek LeMieux Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I really don't understand what age has to do with combat effectiveness. The Ma-Deuce was designed at the end of WWI... And the military has been using it since the 1930's. The 1911... Needs no introduction. (Side note: 1st and 2nd in the U.S. inventory for longest running service, are the M-2 and M1911. Both designed by JM Browning) The M-134 has been around since the 60's, although much improved in current use. I like A-10's too... And I firmly believe they need to remain in the inventory. I'm one of those that thinks they'd be better put to use in the Army though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 what is left of an M113 , on the range you don't relly hear the A 10 , until it is on top of you , as I recall one HE## , of a warplane , watching em fire , glad they was on our side CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Jack Hammer Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 It was pretty much mothballed over 20 years ago, but brought back for desert storm where it was finally used, and proved, for it's intended purpose...pretty bad **s to see in action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 22, 2014 Author Share Posted June 22, 2014 I really don't understand what age has to do with combat effectiveness. The Ma-Deuce was designed at the end of WWI... And the military has been using it since the 1930's. The 1911... Needs no introduction. (Side note: 1st and 2nd in the U.S. inventory for longest running service, are the M-2 and M1911. Both designed by JM Browning) The M-134 has been around since the 60's, although much improved in current use. I like A-10's too... And I firmly believe they need to remain in the inventory. I'm one of those that thinks they'd be better put to use in the Army though. Let's not forget the "Herky-bird." First flight in 1954, into the inventory in '57 and still in production. B-52. First flight in '52, introduced into service in '55. Haven't had a new one roll off the production line since '62. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elk Creek LeMieux Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Let's not forget the "Herky-bird." First flight in 1954, into the inventory in '57 and still in production. B-52. First flight in '52, introduced into service in '55. Haven't had a new one roll off the production line since '62. Don't know how I forgot the first one there. And there's nothing to replace it on any immediate timelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uno Mas SASS #80082 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 U-2/ TR-1 Still serving at 50k feet - or above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The F-15 is no spring chicken. F-16 too, for that matter. Per Wikipedia: A-10 First flight: 1972 F-15 First flight: 1972 F-16 First flight: 1974 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I really don't understand what age has to do with combat effectiveness. The Ma-Deuce was designed at the end of WWI... And the military has been using it since the 1930's. The 1911... Needs no introduction. (Side note: 1st and 2nd in the U.S. inventory for longest running service, are the M-2 and M1911. Both designed by JM Browning) The M-134 has been around since the 60's, although much improved in current use. I like A-10's too... And I firmly believe they need to remain in the inventory. I'm one of those that thinks they'd be better put to use in the Army though. Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The problem isn't age it is funding. If you look at an aircraft and say we can't improve on it for the mission, that's fine. But when you're not even planning replacements when the airframe is no longer able to survive in today's combat arena that is a problem. Can we build something better and more survivable than the A-10 for close air support? Probably not. Can we build something better than the F-15 for air to air combat? Yes the F-22 but funding to do so isn't there because nobody conceives of a need. When we do we will be behind the production curve, again. Can the BUFF survive in combat today? Well, yeah as long as we are fighting third world countries but could it go to China and come back? I believe they should be decommissioned and replaced with B-2's. Not because the B-2 can do the BUFF's current job better but because the BUFF can't do the job strategic bombers are built for. We can build something better to dump tons of dumb bombs on peasants but why keep obsolete aircraft flying if they can't do the job we may need done if the excrement strikes the rotary oscillator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uno Mas SASS #80082 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Heck, the AR-15/ M16 hails from the mid/ late '50s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The AK is even older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elk Creek LeMieux Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The problem isn't age it is funding. If you look at an aircraft and say we can't improve on it for the mission, that's fine. But when you're not even planning replacements when the airframe is no longer able to survive in today's combat arena that is a problem. Can we build something better and more survivable than the A-10 for close air support? Probably not. Can we build something better than the F-15 for air to air combat? Yes the F-22 but funding to do so isn't there because nobody conceives of a need. When we do we will be behind the production curve, again. Can the BUFF survive in combat today? Well, yeah as long as we are fighting third world countries but could it go to China and come back? I believe they should be decommissioned and replaced with B-2's. Not because the B-2 can do the BUFF's current job better but because the BUFF can't do the job strategic bombers are built for. We can build something better to dump tons of dumb bombs on peasants but why keep obsolete aircraft flying if they can't do the job we may need done if the excrement strikes the rotary oscillator? The one article that was linked in here had numerous quotes from "experts" referencing the age of the A-10 as a reason to scrap it. And we can add the CH-47 to the mix of old technology, that's still out there kicking tail, via some updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.