Warthog status corrected to "sustain indefinitely"

WildScotsRacing wrote: In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat: Facts regarding a gun in fighters? You sir, are ignoring the facts of a great number of missed kills in the F-4, both Navy and Air Force, because the pilot didn't have a gun. I will not bother to elaborate for you on certain geometric situations of ACM and BFM ,aka dogfighting, which will absolutely prevent making a missile shot. On the F-15's very first hot intercept, in 1978 IIRC, four Israeli F-15s intercepted four Syrian Mig-21s; one of the kills REQUIRED a gun kill because the Eagle driver found himself suddenly out of parameters for an AIM-9 shot with a bad guy on his nose inside of 1200 feet slant range. On the first day of Desert Storm an F-15 pilot engaged a MiG-29 and the fight got inside AIM-9 minimum range; the Eagle driver was close to taking taking a gun shot when the Fulcrum driver flew into the ground. Day Two of Desert Storm, another Eagle driver was engaged with a highly skilled MiG-25 pilot at low altitude who had foiled three of the Eagle driver's missile shots. The turning fight was rapidly getting close to minimum range for the Eagle pilot's LAST REMAINING AIM-9. Even as he he pressed the pickle button on his last missile, the Eagle pilot was already mentally setting up his gun shot. Stop drinking the berkleying "modern fighters don't need a gun" Kool-aid and instead go do some research on General Robin Olds and Col. John Boyd. Every single berkleying "military expert" who has made that claim was NEVER a fighter pilot. Not a one of them.

Thank you. What I wanted to say, but words have eluded me today.

In reply to crankwalk:

You're in jber? I was just there!! Have you seen the Shelby csx with SCCA stickers running around up there?

/ hijack

In reply to Bobzilla:

Put another way: If you find yourself a knife fight in a phone booth, and all you have is a spear, your day just got worse.

Put another another way: Missiles DO miss. If the never missed, they would be called hittles. (courtesy of Col. Pete "Boomer" Bonanni)

In reply to WildScotsRacing:

This seems like a sensitive subject for you, perhaps you should take a few and relax and not get so wound up about things.

As an aside, I would love to read your sources regarding those A2A kills in the Eagles. I've never heard anything like that and it would make for fine reading.

However, those kills don't negate my statement. You don't need a gun. Its often handy to have one, but on pure numbers of kills, they get used very very rarely. The only gun kill credited to F-15s during the Gulf War was a strafing attack on a grounded transport plane. In fact, a Strike Eagle actually used a guided bomb to shoot down an Iraqi helicopter, which makes bombs MORE useful in A2A than guns if you go by the numbers!

No disrespect is intended to either General Olds or Colonel Boyd, but they are Vietnam era pilots, both of whom retired in the mid 70s. That is over 40 years of evolution in warfare, the same length of time saw us go from fabric covered radial engined biplanes moving at a brisk 100 knots to all metal jet fighters knocking on the sound barrier. And luckily, the F-35 comes with a gun, so you can rest easy.

kazoospec wrote: Do drones/F35's/F22/whatever is on the drawing board at Lockheed do better in that environment? Maybe, provided the few facilities capable of supporting those systems aren't taken out early on.

I'm only quoting this part because the rest is really an opinion piece, and obviously a hot button one at that.

But I'm curious as to where exactly you think A-10s are flying out of that isn't aslo able to support F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16/F-18/ect? The only plane that doesn't have to land at some facility is the AV-8B Harrier (aka the Marines preferred CAS platform by the way) which is also being retired with nary a peep about it by the internet community, to be replaced by the F-35B.

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote:

kazoospec wrote: Do drones/F35's/F22/whatever is on the drawing board at Lockheed do better in that environment? Maybe, provided the few facilities capable of supporting those systems aren't taken out early on.

I'm only quoting this part because the rest is really an opinion piece, and obviously a hot button one at that. But I'm curious as to where exactly you think A-10s are flying out of that isn't aslo able to support F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16/F-18/ect? The only plane that doesn't have to land at some facility is the AV-8B Harrier (aka the Marines preferred CAS platform by the way) which is also being retired with nary a peep about it by the internet community, to be replaced by the F-35B.

Realistically, none of the "high speed" options have anything like the rough/short field capability of the A-10, especially with a usable payload. I suppose you could argue the STOL F-35 qualifies as short field capable, but with less of a weapons capacity than the A-10 has on the center three hardpoints. Every single field large enough for the "F" series fighters is GPS plotted down the the millimeter by any potential adversary and is going to get visited early and often if anything serious ever happens. This is to say nothing of the support facilities needed to maintain modern avionics. The A-10 was designed from the get go to be easily maintained in "primitive" conditions, although avionics added in modernization programs may have diminished that somewhat. Pretty, shiny planes sitting next to 10000ft runways won't last hours in a "modern" war. (See, for example, the Six Day War or the opening of Desert Storm) We've just gotten used to being the one's blowing up other people's fixed facilities.

BTW - I admitted right up front I'm a fanboi, didn't I?

kazoospec wrote: BTW - I admitted right up front I'm a fanboi, didn't I?

How can you not be? It's a friggin plane BUILT AROUND a friggin gun. How friggin awesome is that?

You did.

I'll give you short take-off performance, after all the AX program required a less than 4000ft takeoff run and I've found info stating 1900 ish feet for a combat load of about 50% MTOW, but there is no mention of any rough field rating for the A-10. If you have info, I'd love to read it. Even short runways are still runways though.

One factor to take into consideration beyond all of the technical analysis is that the A-10 is a loved airplane; it just is. This drives enlistment which allows the military to cherry-pick the best and brightest and this provides a PR boost which drives funding.

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: You did. I'll give you short take-off performance, after all the AX program required a less than 4000ft takeoff run and I've found info stating 1900 ish feet for a combat load of about 50% MTOW, but there is no mention of any rough field rating for the A-10. If you have info, I'd love to read it. Even short runways are still runways though.

Short runways are sometimes also known as roads? :)

I've seen a number of references to rough field capability on the A-10 over the years, but can't cite anything authoritative.

In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat:

The A-10 traces its lineage to the need that presented itself in Korea & Vietnam. Those roles were hastily filled by already obsolete piston planes at the time(F4U corsair & later the A-1 Skyraider) because fast movers weren't effective at it. The further justification for it was tank busting the iron curtain's massive numerical advantage in armor.

There is one huge difference between the A-10 & the F series jets guns, the F series are meant for close in air to air engagements, and the A-10's is intended only for ground attack(otherwise they wouldn't fly with AIM9's for self defense)

Realistically, the single best examples of aerial combat in the modern jet age aren't from us, nor the Russians, but instead from the Israelis.

In reply to codrus:

The A-10 was also developed for grass/dirt(primative) forward landing strips as well, hence the rugged landing gear.

This thread needs less arguing and more Hog pics.

RX Reven' wrote: One factor to take into consideration beyond all of the technical analysis is that the A-10 is a loved airplane; it just is. This drives enlistment which allows the military to cherry-pick the best and brightest and this provides a PR boost which drives funding.

This may actually be the best argument I've heard so far. Bravo Zulu Sir.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat: The A-10 traces its lineage to the need that presented itself in Korea & Vietnam. Those roles were hastily filled by already obsolete piston planes at the time(F4U corsair & later the A-1 Skyraider) because fast movers weren't effective at it. The further justification for it was tank busting the iron curtain's massive numerical advantage in armor. There is one huge difference between the A-10 & the F series jets guns, the F series are meant for close in air to air engagements, and the A-10's is intended only for ground attack(otherwise they wouldn't fly with AIM9's for self defense) Realistically, the single best examples of aerial combat in the modern jet age aren't from us, nor the Russians, but instead from the Israelis.

I've never said the A-10 wasn't necessary. But that program was a long time ago, over 40 years. It's been a great soldier, but even great soldiers should be allowed to retire on top.

Fun fact though, 2 A-10s scored A2A kills against Iraqi helicopters during the Gulf War with their 30 mm!

Also, F-16s have strafed enemy positions in Afghanistan to good effect. http://www.eglin.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/391306/major-awarded-distinguished-flying-cross

I can't believe we made it three pages into this discussion about extending the life cycle of aircraft that should have been retired decades ago without mentioning the plane that was already drinking in bars when the A-10 entered service:

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: T-6s are only going to work in low intensity conflicts. Yes, that's what we are dealing with NOW, but that may not be what we will face tomorrow. Just like the anti-vehicle missile thread, you can't take a low intensity conflict weapon and employ it in a high intensity environment, but you CAN take a high intensity weapon and use it anywhere. What I mean by that is, yes, T-6s will work fine going against ISIS now. But if Putin ships them a couple SAMs or China decides to flex some muscles in the pacific, then the T-6 is a waste of money. Same with the A-10.

the Embraer 314 Super Tucano is a better plane than the t-6 Texan II

Somewhere the ghost of Col. Boyd is weeping.

Sorry, kids, I've read too much, heard too much, know too much to play in this thread anymore. Bingo fuel. Appleseed out.

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: You did. I'll give you short take-off performance, after all the AX program required a less than 4000ft takeoff run and I've found info stating 1900 ish feet for a combat load of about 50% MTOW, but there is no mention of any rough field rating for the A-10. If you have info, I'd love to read it. Even short runways are still runways though.

Nothing authoritative, at least none of the sort of stuff you see, for example, of the Russians actually practicing rough/dirt field work with some of their front line stuff. I've read sources that talked about about how it was "designed for" rough field operation and pointed out things like the high set engines and wide, low pressure tires and a straight wing with huge flaps as supporting that capability, but never came right out and said the USAF had ever tried rough field operations with it. The official USAF "spec sheet" talks about "short takeoff and landing" and operations from "austere facilities", but doesn't come right out and say it's rough field capable. Now that you mention it, I've seen footage of short field/roadway takeoffs and landings, but never an actual "unimproved" surface. "Improved" surfaces, however, can be nothing more than a decent straight stretch of a two lane road.

Example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gukbW2n6lxs

In reply to kazoospec:

Very cool, I had never seen that video or heard mention of A-10s being operated from highways. I honestly wouldn't have expected a US highway to be rated for those kind of loads. Wonder if they ever attempted it with a combat load?

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: In reply to kazoospec: Very cool, I had never seen that video or heard mention of A-10s being operated from highways. I honestly wouldn't have expected a US highway to be rated for those kind of loads. Wonder if they ever attempted it with a combat load?

There are persistent rumors that the US Interstate system was designed to be able to be used as a runway, but I've got no idea if they're actually true or not. That video isn't even a freeway!

Its not. It was only designed to link major military areas with each other to facilitate the movement of troops over road, according to the Eisenhower Interstate Act.

In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat:

Another A-10 fun fact: Also in Desert Storm, Hog driver shot down a Mirage F1 with a gun kill

Source? Because the only A2A kills I can find credited to the A-10 in the Gulf are a Bo-105 and Mi-8.

An easy to read graph of all credited allied kills in Desert Storm here:

http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aakill/By%20Weapon/