Posted on 07/31/2021 7:20:22 AM PDT by Onthebrink
A typical misconception is that the military always seeks to enlarge its force, obtain more equipment and keep what it has – while it is lawmakers who want to cut budgets and force a downsizing of ships and planes as cost-cutting measures. However, when it comes to the A-10 Thunderbolt II – known affectionately as the Warthog – it is the United States Air Force that is being “forced” to retain an aircraft the service would like to retire.
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
Good Lord.
Ten’s of thousands of military in and around the building, and hundred and hundreds of former military on the roads adjacent and nearby, but no, it wasn’t a jet. . .really?
And being present at a few mishaps in my career with the Air Force, I assure you the jets are built lightly, thin skinned and braced like a balsawood model. When the jet impacts directly into something very hard and immobile, they literally shatter into small pieces. In an impact like that, only big pieces like the engines and few hydraulic components can be easily seen.
I applaud your patience when dealing with the the tin-foil hat crowd.
Never can change their minds or reason with them, after all, to them, the lack of proof is PROOF of a coverup.
“...WW2 aviator Hans Rudel supposedly designed it the A-10”
Think not, his reputation as a diehard nazi would have put the kibosh on such an initiative. Doesn’t rule out informal back-channel consultation though.
No question Rudel was one of the great WWII aviators. Downed on at least one occasion, Rudel also had significant experience in escape & evasion.
Anecdotally, I gather that the professional skills of Hans-Ulrich Rudel were well admired by U.S. Marines in the attack helicopter community. No question his politics were not acceptable. His book, “Stuka Pilot” was said to be on an informal professional reading list for attack pilots.
The USAF did not ask to retire the A-10. It asked to reduce its numbers. This headline is a lie.
The ”Jug”, or original Thunderbolt, would have been just as effective as Helldivers.
Not exactly: both the Helldiver and the SBD can attack from nearly the vertical to get excellent accuracy and powerful effects.
The Jug was an excellent fighter-bomber, getting excellent accuracy with strafing and rockets, but not as much with bombs.
However, If the Air Force had actually sent Jugs or any damn thing else for direct support of the Omaha Beach landing, many Americans killed that day would have lived.
BINGO!!!
The best close support aircraft since the Skyraider and the high and fast idiots want to get rid of it.
“His book, “Stuka Pilot” was said to be on an informal professional reading list for attack pilots.”
***
The Pentagon officer in charge of developing the A10, Pierre Sprey not only consulted Rudel but made his ENTIRE TEAM read that book before they start the process. When Rudel was in DC at a packed convention. Sprey was the translator. while Rudel spoke.
Always curious about that -- if you can't get in-flight refueling, what are the hops for an A-10 from Japan to Cali, given max fuel tank loadout?
He also told us they are also stationed in S. Korea too. A10’s are all over. There’s supposedly at least 2 squadrons in S Korea, in case the commies breach the border. That’s a good question. I’ll ask him next time.
“...If the air force doesn’t want the A-10, then give it to Army...” [BobL, post 5]
No can do.
By public law (passed by US Congress) UAS Army cannot have fixed-wing aircraft if they are armed. Only USN and USAF can have them.
It’s why US Army has so many armed heloes.
The Army has attempted to sneak some fixed-wing “shooters” into their inventory, but it was discovered and they were ordered to give them up.
The Secretary of the Army is a weenie. I was in Army Aviation for 16 years, and yes, we would take it.
Maybe “Big Army” couldn’t handle it. But I’m sure there’s a certain Army Aviation Regiment that would not have an issue with managing it at all.
Again, when an aircraft impacts a solid immobile object (Pentagon is stone), the entire aircraft skin and other “soft” surfaces like an empennage and such shatter into a bazillion pieces.
This is fact.
And no complete bodies because of fragmentation due to deceleration. You come apart, dramatically. For example, a mishap I investigated, we could only find a single boot with a foot in it and the left kneecap. Nothing else. They hit vertically into the hard caliche rock and there was just small pieces of the jet, too.
Please re-read my original post, think seriously and consider all points raised here and in my original post. Credible witnesses, et al,
Pre-911, cameras at the Pentagon were old school, you know, not that defined as we see today. (My office at the Pentagon burned on 911–I was 30 mikes away when it happened).
And the camera was focused on the gate, not the grainy background.
I suspect you are not an aviator or experienced mishap investigator (and seriously, not to be insulting, I doubt you know why an aircraft can fly), therefore, conspiracies and cover-ups are easily accepted.
We are done.
Further exchanges will be pointless and probably devolve into an evangelical rant by you to convince me I am wrong.
Cheers and wish you the best. . .
True, but Big Army owns the entire Army budget.
OK cool did not know that.
I live on a training loop and see the A-10s fairly often, sometimes low and slow.
I compare them to the Pelican - out-of-proportion, gangly, awkward, clumsy ...and then they fly!
It’s a thrill every time.
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.