Posted on 05/27/2017 6:25:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Air Force leaders have reversed an Obama administration decision on the A-10 attack plane known as the Warthog.
The previous administration had decided to retire the aircraft, viewing it as an unaffordable extra in what had been a time of tight budgets.
Three years ago the Pentagon proposed scrapping the Warthog fleet as a way of saving $3.5 billion. Congress rejected that idea. Each of the next two years the military tried again, putting off the Warthog's retirement a bit further in the future each time....
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Do not agree.
Altitude means nothing.
It is weapons effects.
Low airshows are fun to watch but it is weapons delivery that makes the mission.
Their are two types of platforms. . . .fighter and targets.
Altitude has nothing to do with CAS, it is delivering munitions in close proximity to friendly troops that define CAS.
Low altitude airshows are nice to watch but irrelevant when delivering accurate munitions. . .and get too low and you blow yourself out of the sky from the frag pattern of the bomb you just dropped.
“Someone who worked in Aerospace claimed he knew of A-10’s in Vietnam that lost an engine (blown off) and still returned to base.”
The A-10 came into service in the 70’s, well after Vietnam, so either your friend lied or you had a typo.
Hah!!
Good one.
LATS and RATS
Easy target for what? Are you referring to things like shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles?
The A-10 isn't vulnerable to small arms fire, is it? I know they're not very fast—they can "only" fly at 450 mph—but they are heavily armored at least, aren't they?
We exited Vietnam in 1975. I am not sure when the Warthog came out. We had a number of aircraft, including B-52’s lost in Vietnam.
However, I could be wrong. It might have been a discussion of the F-4.
Might be. . .but, for sure, the A-10 did not fly operationally or in test in Vietnam.
1972 was the first test flight. During test and evaluation further refinements changed its design and eventually, in 1977, the first squadron became operational. Never saw service in Vietnam. . .
First Gulf War stat of interest: In an A-10, if you took a hit you had an 80% chance of coming home. . . whereas, if you were in an F-16, if you took a hit then you have a 80% chance of losing the jet.
Impressive.
I know the Army tried, the Army ran an Air Force throughout WW 2 while being on the move. It can do it again with the A 10s.
Altitude does indeed mean something, particularly with fast movers. And I’m not talking about air shows.
Of course, I served in the Air Force during Vietnam, and the ordnance was much different from today’s toys. In Vietnam, the Marines and the Navy’s A-1 Skyraiders (single-engine prop job) were superb for low-level close-air support.
Perhaps but the challenges of running ops for a P-47, let’s say, are a far different thing than what is necessary for the A-10.
The A-10 is designed to fly off/on some unimproved surfaces, but when it does so, its tires need replacement quite often (heavier jet by far from any fighter in WWII so, best case, a couple of sorties and need new tires). And the engines are jets, and jets suffer FOD damage when working off of unimproved locations.
I should have been more clear; altitude is not the defining requirement for running CAS as many people like to believe
“It was flying so low that it gave worms a haircut” seems to reflect what many believe—you need to fly low to perform CAS.
No so. You fly at an altitude that is necessary to avoid threats and the most importantly—you fly at an altitude based on the weapon you are delivering.
Well, duh. You’re not going to fire a 20mm cannon at a ground target from 35,000 feet. Likewise, you’re not going to drop napalm from altitude (by the way, I heard that napalm is no longer used; too bad, it was a fearful weapon).
As said before: You fly at an altitude that is necessary to avoid threats and the most importantly—you fly at an altitude based on the weapon you are delivering.
With the A-10, it’s gun can really reach out and touch someone. I’ve flow strafe runs at 12,000 feet, and it is fun to finish the trigger pull (less than a second), then turn away and then, wait for it, a couple seconds later the rounds go punching through the target.
By the way, yes, we don’t have napalm in our inventory anymore.
While carrying the same nomenclature, the design and purpose of the A-10 is a carryover from the P-38, which I am sure you know was the Lightning (Lightning/Thunderbolt... same thing).
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II was named after the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt because it was intended to carry out similar missions of close air support and ground attack. The P-47 had earned a reputation as a tough, hard-hitting ground attack aircraft that could survive heavy damage. The Lockheed P-38 may have conducted similar missions, and had two engines, but it was not in the family tree of the A-10. They could have easily named it the Lightning II, but they did not.
I would not disagree with any of that information.
But there are a lot more similarities between the design of the P-38 and the A-10 than there are between the P-47 and the A-10.
Which is one of the reasons the engines are so high off the ground, and partially shielded from FOD by the wings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.