A-10 pics - Page 2

**gregh** · #11 03-06-2015, 03:34 PM

@elliott,
Yea i agree with you. About 20+ years ago when Rock Island Arsenal was one of my customers i was able to tour some of the buildings what a revelation. They had the tooling and machinery for many weapon systems kept in excellent condition and as they said "ready for use...". One day the building we were in shook like a small earthquake struck. No worry they said just testing one of new naval gun mounts. Probably the new (at that time) rapid fire 5incher.
@richkat
read yesterday the Sec of Army does not want the A-10. Probably because there would be no funding to go with the physical aircraft.
The pointy nose guys want to transition the A-10 ground and maint personnel to the F-35.
Oh i forgot the Sandys were also called SPADS, regardless they sure were a welcome sight on a few occasions.

**kingjason14** · #12 03-06-2015, 03:56 PM

As a former 13F, I loved the A-10. Being stationed at Ft. Wainwright in the early '90s most of out CAS air hours were A-10s out of Eielson AFB. The AF should have turned them over to the Army years ago. If the Sec of the Army does not want the A-10, we need a new Sec of the Army.
I personally think the F-35 is going to prove to be a disappointment.

**paperengineer** · #13 03-06-2015, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingjason14

I personally think the F-35 is going to prove to be a disappointment.

Can't agree more. "Let's replace f-16s and a10s with f-35s and f-15s with f22s!"
Who's making decisions these days? And how much do they drink?

**kingjason14** · #14 03-06-2015, 04:51 PM

I can understand the f-15 to ATF, it is progression. But I have heard through the aviation grapevine that the F-22 is not all the AF expected, which is part of the reason the line was stopped at 167.

The F-35 makes me think of that McNamarian logic of the F-4 and the F-111. It is a jack of all trades, master of none. And once they hang external ordinance the stealth advantage is negated. And the USMC requirement of a STOVL aircraft is inane. And that LM modeled the STOVL system off of the Yak, really? The F-4 was not the air superiority fighter that we should have had, especially for the price. The F-111 was not a fighter and should have not been forced at the Navy (I do think that the F-111 was a great plane, as supersonic bomber).

At least the Navy dodged it and got the F-14. Although the first engine to go into the Tomcat was not a good match for the airframe.

**richkat** · #15 03-06-2015, 07:16 PM

The A-10 is like a big sledgehammer, the F-35 is more like a small ball peen hammer, just to fragile for real hard dirty war fighting......Rich

**richkat** · #16 04-10-2015, 08:04 PM

THIS JUST MESSED UP!!!.......Rich
US Air Force general fired for A-10 'treason' comments

spaceagent-9 · #17 04-10-2015, 08:28 PM

cant understand why they discontinued these great warplanes. unless they made a better one. seen one in action once, was unbelievable maneuverability.

**willygoat** · #18 04-10-2015, 08:46 PM

The Hogs are still kicking so far. They just sent a squadron back to Europe in the late fall. Plus, the deployment to the middle east has them proving their worth.

I get the Air Force top brass' thought that having a single use platform isn't as cost effective as a multi-role one like the F-16/F-35. But, when it's the old birds that they are trying to scrap (A-10 & U-2) that are out performing the fast jets on readiness rate and cost per flight hour, I don't see how they can just dump them to the bone yard.

As great as a F-16 is, it can't get down in the weeds and scare off a tank battalion with a couple puffs of its canon. Only the A-10 can do that!

**Mike1158** · #19 04-11-2015, 03:55 AM

I know of one answer to the waste of money and equipment in our military units and it is lobbying. Old systems are not making money for the companies that made them any more so they need the governments to buy new. Something to be said for the KISS principle and it is NOT to increase the bonus of defence CEO's. I am sure most of our countries have a few decent walls lying about unused.......

**Kevin WS** · #20 04-11-2015, 05:53 AM

You would think they would, yes!

But do you need the production forms? Is it because perhaps they are more "modern" aircraft with higher stress/tolerance components? I don't know - I'm not an expert. But this thread has got me curious!

The Hawker Hunter was still in active service in Lebanon in 2014 - 64 years after the first one flew. So those planes are at least 55 to 55 years old if not more. I have seen these planes operating in anger elsewhere, and overloaded with munitions, 35 years after they were made, with spares being machined locally or cobbled up.

I also remember being told a new main spar being made for a Dak. Something I did not know was possible.

These though were not"modern" aircraft!