Comments on: Warthog Wing Cracks Under Control; AF “Gets” UAVs…

By: DDearborn

DDearborn — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:44:59 +0000

Even if the Air Force actually did restart production they would dump so many requirements and “improvements” on the design that it would end up costing 50 million a copy. “Development” costs would be in the 10’s of Billions. It would fly like a pig, have at least one major design flaw. Maintenance would be a nightmare.
Basically they would build a piece of crap. So in the end it would be just like every other airplane they have built in recent memory.

By: Ken R

Ken R — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:31:16 +0000

I am prior service USAF, and just a dumb cop, but for effective CAS I would think the Warthog would be better with US Army on the side…forgive me my AF brothers and sisters. But just for combat control it would seem to take some of the time-lag out of calling in a air strike coming from the ground troops, rather than the sometimes lengthy process used now, with the prospect of confusion being increased or lost in translation, so to speak. I have seen the F-16’s in CAS and they are amazing, but just don’t compare with a “Hog”.
Just my opinion…but we all know it is much quicker firing our own hand-cannon, rather than tell someone else where, when, and how many, you know?

By: Rhys F

Rhys F — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:15:57 +0000

Oh yeah, also the –18 and –16 20mm is anti-air fuzed high explosive… make a pretty crater on the armour and blow off some paint… the 30 is solid penetrator solids, punch through from kinetic energy.

By: Rhys F

Rhys F — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:12:04 +0000

“Ah-heh. Most tanks are built to stand up to AP from a 105–why would they be worried about a 30 but not a 20?”

Angle… most tanks are armoured to withstand attacks from the same level and in front. not to withstand hits coming down from above and the rear.

if a tank had equal armour on all 6 sides (top bottom and all 4 around) then it would be too heavy to move, so most have heavy front and not-so-heavy but still respectable side armour, thin top and rear armour and just enough to hold off a mine on the underside.

a 30mm from the sky through the thin rear topsides will knock out a tank just as well as a 120mm aimed at the thick frontal plate.

By: Ted Taylor

Ted Taylor — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:07:23 +0000

Some very good reasons to keep the A-10 and the B-52. No good reason for the F-22, F-35, B-2, B-1. Pretty and fast have never won a battle. The F-22 is good in the air but with today’s toys, I would not let one get airborne. They would litter the ramp. the B-2 is stuck to hangers and is not an all weather bomber. Let it try to sneak through a rain cloud.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:18:02 +0000

Sgt Schwartz: If “low and slow” is the critera, then the Apache is even better than the A-10!

“Most tanks would laugh at the 20mm rounds from a 16 or 18.”

Ah-heh. Most tanks are built to stand up to AP from a 105–why would they be worried about a 30 but not a 20?

Look, I agree that CAS is a useful mission, but CAS as it has evolved is more like indirect-fire artillery than the kind of low-level ground-strafing action that people think of when they hear “close air support”. Indeed, why put the IFF blinds on everything if CAS is so great?

By: jobro1313

jobro1313 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:43:51 +0000

i like the idea of stretching the cockpit, better wings, upgrade the engines, more fuel, add a w.o and a remote controlled weapons platform for laser and or gun. mini specter! more eyes on target, the loiter time, ability to take punishment, ability to take out anything on the ground.… i am medicaled out of af but i think like a ground punder… sleek and sexy juts are great for movies, great for libido… they have cdi(chicks dig it) value but the truth is the a-12 had a better kill rate that the 16.. hopefully the usaf will always have the a-10 improved and upgraded. may it always be there for the guys that need it right here right now shtf!!! if the usaf wont let the army protect their own like they wanted…

GOD BLESS ALL THOSE FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOM, OUR WAY OF LIFE.. PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THESE UNITED STATES… MAY WE SLEEP SAFELY AT NIGHT KNOWING YOU GUYS ARE EVER VIGILANT!!!

AIM HIGH!
SEMPER FI!
HOOHAH!
GO NAVY!

By: Sgt Schwartz

Sgt Schwartz — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:48:57 +0000

“DensityDuck January 19th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I know this is going to be unpopular, but…the A-10 really doesn’t do much in the Iraq War that the F-16 and F-18 don’t do. Or the B-52, for that matter, which can carry as many 500-pound JDAM as we’d use in a week. Or hell, Copperheads and Excaliburs from a five-inch SP.

However, none of these things is a giant flying phallic symbol. I can see why they would be less popular!”

Other planes cant do CAS (Close Air Support) like an A-10. Nothing can go lower and slower to protect ground assests. Ask any ground pounder or tanker crw what they want protecting them, not one would ask for anything else.

and as far as other planes doing the same thing, these figures here should say something.

n 1991, the planes proved their mettle in the Persian Gulf War, destroying more than 1,000 tanks, 2,000 military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces. Five A-10s were shot down during the war, far fewer than military planners expected. Most tanks would laugh at the 20mm rounds from a 16 or 18.

By: Tim Dodd

Tim Dodd — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:57:10 +0000

Maybe we should enforce immigration laws. Then we’d have enough money for all the projects.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:23:59 +0000

I worked at FRC from ’77 to ’86, from Tail Number 63 through the end of production, and you guys have it right, because the joke was that if it were an Army program, the run would be up to 4,000. Check out the Bermuda tri-service conference in ’62, in which the roles and missions were ironed out for what was coming in SEA. The payload and endurance of the A-10 are amazing, as is the commitment of the pilots to the CAS mission.

By: Jeff Dulin

Jeff Dulin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:51:42 +0000

How I wish we’d had the A-10 in RVN in the 60’s. We had the Sandy and it did a great job but the A-10 was the next logical step. You could have even mounted XM-18 mini-gun pods on the wings for more lead in the air. What a great plane!!Fire power, visibility and TOT all in one easily maintained package for a lot less money than any fast mover.

The problem seems that you can’t build a good retirement career with the A-10 because it already exists! How’s a soon to be retiring military bureaucrat in the Pentigon supposed to dig his way into a nice, highly paid “Consulting” position with a contractor if the damn thing is already there!!?? hurrumpff!! Everybody KNOWS you can only do that with NEW, Very Expensive long time running programs that will be around after you retire.

I had the pleasure to work with the A-10’s out of TRUAX in Madison, WI during JATTZ missiions at Ft. McCoy and the Hardwood Range in Central WI years ago. What a great anti-anything on the ground (Where the War is) aircraft it is. That’s the AF’s problem: They’ve forgotten where the war is and are just in love with their ego’s and flying expensive iron. Not getting the job that needs to be done on the ground.

Either the AF should build more or let the Army have it. Perhaps BOTH! After all, the AF doesn’t mind sharing Airframes with the Navy and Marines. Why not the same type of realationship with the ARMY?

By: soares junior

soares junior — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:40:56 +0000

i would like to buy some A-10 fairchild…i used to have them flying very low in england country side…its noise are amazing…kind of metal grinding and electric…thumbs up for the A-10…

By: SGT Thomas

SGT Thomas — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:59:15 +0000

After having a A-10 overfly me, slow down, check me out then continue on its way. Then another time have been over flown my a couple F-16’s that never knew i was there, i will take a A-10 over my shoulder any day. I have seen holes in it you could climb thru and still fly. If the AF doesnt want it, our pilots would take it anyday!! Between us and the Marines, we KNOW ground support. If the AF doesnt want it, let those of us who know better have it!

By: hersshawe

hersshawe — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:25:19 +0000

stretch the fuselage add a cockpit for a W.O, add some more fuel and better imaging technology.
You have made an already excellent grund support plane into a better one.
f-16 f-18 too fast for Ops these planes do.

By: Greg G

Greg G — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:33:44 +0000

“The Warthog is like a red headed step child to the AF. And they are embarrassed to admit the plane is needed and performs its mission well. Gates ought to take away this program and give it to the Army. They would manage it better if for no other reason than they are the recipient of its services.”

This comment is as outdated as the old fart who wrote it. It’s been nearly 20 years since I first heard it and I don’t care for it anymore now than I did then.

The aircraft has a nitch in the big picture that the brass understands and utilizes successfully, and there is no, none, zero indication that Army Aviation could manage the A-10 program better than the USAF.

By: PLC

PLC — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:03:53 +0000

If you look at the cost analysis between the UCAVs and the A-10 (minus the pilot), the pricing is close (A-10 $11.5M, predator $5.5M). I’d still trust the decision making and intuition of a real live pilot. Both beat the hell out of the $135M Raptor.

The Pentagon needs to realize you don’t need high-tech stealth fighters when you’re fighting a low-tech war on the ground. I’m not a MASSIVE “HOG” junkie but I see the need for a low tech, heavily armed close air support fighter.

By: rebel3439

rebel3439 — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:48:03 +0000

The A-10 was first flown by an Air Force Unit in
October 1977. No way anyone was thinking of
getting rid of them until the late 80’s.
Gulf war stopped that. They do not need to build new ones. Just make new wings for the ones they have or modify and beef up the wings all ready
in service.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:13:46 +0000

I know this is going to be unpopular, but…the A-10 really doesn’t do much in the Iraq War that the F-16 and F-18 don’t do. Or the B-52, for that matter, which can carry as many 500-pound JDAM as we’d use in a week. Or hell, Copperheads and Excaliburs from a five-inch SP.

However, none of these things is a giant flying phallic symbol. I can see why they would be less popular!

By: Harbor Pilot

Harbor Pilot — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:34:42 +0000

I am a grizzled, old army warrant officer
and remember (1960–1973) when the air force
wanted to rid themselves of this “dinosaur” and
the army was delighted. When told that they
would then have warrant officers as pilots the air force changed its mind.

By: Ed Reese

Ed Reese — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:42:21 +0000

I’m a retired groundpounder who used to work near the A-10 USAFR unit in Syracuse, NY. I thanked those guys and God for those aircraft every time I drove past the unit. The USAF wanted to do away with A-10’s. IDIOTS! Call them a warthog if you want, I think they are the most beautiful aircraft ever built; especially when they fly overhead to attack the enemy that can have me under fire.