Posted on 08/04/2016 6:18:44 AM PDT by Mariner
The U.S. Marine Corps, tired of waiting for the continuously-delayed F-35B, has gone to the Arizona boneyard to retrieve some of its preserved, first-edition F-18 Hornets to fulfill its close air support obligation to protect Marines on the ground.
Mindful of the aphorism “willful waste makes woeful want,” the Marine Corps preserved its F-18s in the boneyard just in case it ever needed them again.
The U.S. Air Force, not feeling a similar obligation to protect U.S. Army soldiers on the ground and arguing that the F-35A can perform close air support as well as the A-10 Warthog can do, is now claiming it cannot afford the A-10s because it needs the money to support the forthcoming F-35A.
With a mentality reminiscent of Vietnam thinking — “We had to destroy the village to protect it!” — the Air Force is dismantling some of its stored A-10s.
Even the warning from the popular musical Hamilton — “Don’t throw away your shot!” — is not enough to get the Air Force to reflect on the possibility the thin-skinned F-35A might not be up to the job of getting down low and slow to save soldiers’ lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
Offset nose wheel (catapult incompatibility), no folding wings, etc., etc. There is a long list of expensive modifications needed to get the A-10 functional from a carrier.
Above and beyond strengthening the airframe for catapult and tail hook is the folding wing thing. Generally a plane is built around the ability to fold the wings.
I wonder if it’s not so much the airframe overall, but the landing gear and the reinforcement related to that? Even going as slow as possible, the landing gear would still need to be replaced with heavier stuff to land on a carrier, and the heavier gear in turn would probably require some re-engineering of the airframe.
I wonder if the real problem is a lack of space for the heavier gear, particularly the nose wheel? The GAU takes up a lot of room in the nose.
Also, the tail hook for an A-10 would have to be incredibly long, and I’d have to wonder if there is a risk of pulling the nose off the deck upon landing? The A-10 main gear is pretty far forward, the fuselage sits high, and there’s a lot of weight hanging behind the wings.
The tail hook for an A-10 would have to be mounted on the front, so the carrier could drive up underneath the A-10 and catch it...
Bull ,remember Obama is still around with all his lies
Maybe they can use a big butterfly net?
Why not just turn the existing A-10’s over to the Army and Marines? They can provide their own CAS.
A pod-mounted Gatling is available, but isn’t flying yet (deployed) and has only another few seconds of ammo. A pod slows the aircraft and removes much of the stealth needed against ground-to-air missiles and other high-end aircraft.
Too many low-level attack planes in Vietnam (also ran by Pentagon “analysis” by McNamara’s “team” of experts ) were lost to “dumb” ground fire. The USAF generals don’t promote ground attack pilots, and so don’t have ground attack pilots in the Pentagon to argument the gee-whiz experts playing computer games against computer opponents..
All my life I always thought the only reason the Marines wanted aircraft was to protect their troops on the ground. Their version of the F-35 doesn't even have a gun.
I have worked on programs where a gun pod was attached to an aircraft and because of the vibration the accuracy was crummy.
Every A-10 pilot know loves their airplane.
It wold seem to me that the U.S.A.F. generals are first cousins to the Navy Admirals who in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s insisted and ruled the BATTLESHIP would forever rule the waves.
On 12/7/41 the Japanese proved them wrong and thus made the U.S. Navy into a CARRIER Navy, that swept the seas.
I remind the Air Force that the Russian Stormavik, the American Thunderbolt, Mustang and Corsair helped pave for the for the American infantry. The Israeli Air Force,too,understands that MASTERY OF THE AIR, goes all the way down to the ground.
Too bad. The A-10 is a fearsome, awesome, fighting machine the ground troops can easily relate to.
Army doesn’t like fixed-wing aircraft... rotors are their flavor...
Actually that was proposed in the early 90’s, but the af then decided it wanted to keep the A 10 program for it’s self, saying it was their domain to deal with & will not relinquish that part of their mission.
Actually, O Clubs have long since become All hands Clubs (more PC). Os now go into town to a bar that caters to them.
The F-4 didn’t have a gun when first introduced. It was going to be a missile war, you know. After high losses in Vietnam, a gun pod was added as was training in dog-fighting. Thus Top Gun.
I don't recall reading in the story how many A-10Cs were salvaged and rendered into aluminum ingots just the nebulous "some". That is enough to make the story sensational without being specifically factual.
For example, condemnation of an airframe can result from class B and C mishaps which can render the airframe unflyable but not unusable. Some become maintenance trainers, some are relegated to the fire department as rescue and recovery trainers (check out you local base fire training pit), most eventually are sent to DMAFB for AMARG disposition.
As I understand it, that "rotary wing" requirement was forced on the Army by the AF. I just finished an email conversation with the hubby of a gal I graduated HS. He retired from the Army air wing with 5000 hours flying time, only 1200 of which was rotary.
I understand the limitations of the A-10 wrt carrier usage, but the Army has no such limitations. Give the A-10's to the Army, and with it the ground support role. The AF doesn't really want it, and the ground troops need it.
It's still here after all these wars, years and beers, so I'm going to say "Yes".
Did the AV-8B replace the A-10? No. It did not.
Will the F-35 replace what the A-10 brings to any fight? No, it will not.
The F-35 might bring some quicker, but it won't replace what the A-10 is packing.
Can the A-10 do what the F-35 can do? No, it cannot.
The A-10 was not and is not fit for that duty and that is not in its job description.
So, why are we arguing?
A lot of people have a car and a pickup in their garage and I think there's room in our military's hanger for both the A-10 and the F-35.
It's always nice to have the right tool on hand for the job at hand, right?
So, why throw away a perfectly good tool like the A-10 and replace it with a shiny new one, when you can have both in your tool box and bag of tricks?
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.