My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

Of course for some reason Australia is buying 70 odd F35's. Or we were, that number may have changed in the last few months. And we have only one use for them.

Annachie wrote:Of course for some reason Australia is buying 70 odd F35's. Or we were, that number may have changed in the last few months. And we have only one use for them.

What would that one use be?

Tarmac weights, so that the airfield doesn't blow away in the wind,

or

Australia's contribution to subsidizing the US Arms industry?



.

Ensign Re-read wrote:What would that one use be?

Tarmac weights, so that the airfield doesn't blow away in the wind,

or

Australia's contribution to subsidizing the US Arms industry?

OK, OK, that may have been unfair.

I hope that once the F-22 & F-35 are past their "teething pains" that they will be effective fighters. (PRICEY, but effective.)

My point should have just been limited to their uselessness as Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft.



.

Ensign Re-read wrote:Tenshinai:

I disagree, at least to some extent.

If SecDef or POTUS say so, then the Key West Agreement could be null and void, or at least modified to their hearts desire.

Oh, you WISH it was that easy. Yes they probably could push it through(but i wouldn´t guarantee even that), but there would likely be a severe pricetag in the form of a lot of unhappy, annoyed or snubbed people.

In short, the horsetrading system that is US military politics would probably fall apart completely.
Likely at least a few political scandals and some very hostile resignations.

Might evolve into an epic mess. No president is going to risk that unless he MUST do it. Service rivalry in USA is vicious, and trying to interfere is one of those classic "third rails of politics" in USA.

Ensign Re-read wrote:Once that document is out of the way, they could also take the next step and transfer the "ownership" of the A-10 inventory to the Army, and task the Air Force to maintain them.

We already have an example of how this would work.
They're called the US Navy and the US Marine Corps.

Once the Air Force is no longer the the owner's box, their opinion is (almost) irrelevant.

Which is exactly why they will scream bloody murder before letting it ever happen.

And why do you think the airforce is almost constantly trying to restrict access to aircraft for the US navy and marines?

Ensign Re-read wrote:What would that one use be?

Tarmac weights, so that the airfield doesn't blow away in the wind,

or

Australia's contribution to subsidizing the US Arms industry?

Ok, fine. Two uses.

##########

Zakharra wrote:It almost sounds like the Air Force is of like mind with Hermann Wilhelm Göring, who is reported to have said: 'If it flies, it's mine' in regards to any planes.

Sadly, that isn´t far from the truth.

Zakharra wrote:The Air Force should get off of its high horse and just sign over the A-10s and the like to the Army and be done with it.

Oh dear no, can´t do that! That would mean that their holy budget would pass money over to the ARMY, that would be utter blasphemy and completely intolerable.

Hmmm, many very good points here- and I note they all
come down on the side of keeping it, a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree.

HOWEVER:

1. The Air Farce( oops! 'scuse me!! Air Force ) has tried for a great many years to get away from their origins:
the US Army Air Corps.

2.The so-called 'multi role'aircraft is a dodo. the boys in blue have been spouting that same line of nonsense for decades: anyone remember the F-104? THAT particular defense industry fiasco was perpetuated on the Germans. "Oh, yeah, we can take a high altitude, mach 3(IIRC) razor winged aircraft and turn it into a GROUND SUPPORT AIRCRAFT."( F-104G,'G' for 'Germany', don't ya know) Even the Air Force, or at least one General ( The name escapes me... sorry. Might have even been LeMay) described the whole aircraft as '30,000 pieces flying around in close formation'. Don't have a lot of info on the Tornado, but what I do have suggests it was... less than adequate.

3. The A-10 was designed as a front line unit, with the capability to swap parts between aircraft (and even reverse parts- the rudders in particular)and as such, has proven to be a boon to,um, FRONT LINE units. It has the ability to remain on station for much longer periods of time than the vast majority of the AF's 'Sh..erm, 'Scat and git' fighters.

4. The idea of an ammo drum as big as your average Volkswagen just tickles the heck outta me. I am a big proponent of the 'Peace through superior firepower' arguement. The 8 tons of freefall ordnance is fun,too.. if you don't just want to go for the idea of massive gunpods...

5. As far as keeping this aircraft active and even keep it in production (at least for parts), well.... Anyone remember a little organization prior to WWII called the AVG? You might remember it better as the 'Flying Tigers'.
Given outdated equipment they accomplished a great deal prior to the US getting 'officially' involved in that conflict.(And if someone chooses to bring up 'Pappy' Boyington, I shall be most upset... )

In short, I agree that the AF is trying to kill off a most successful aircraft- but, whaddaya want from th' Frat Boys?

No offense intended whatsoever to those vets who chose the Air Force as a career. The only (tounge in cheek) question I have is, why would you want to fly an aircraft that was sooo weak in the back end that you couldn't land it on a carrier- even if it was the only friendly airfield in reach?

But the merits of Navy Aircraft versus Air Force is a topic for another discussion, I fear

Ensign Re-read wrote:

Annachie wrote:Of course for some reason Australia is buying 70 odd F35's. Or we were, that number may have changed in the last few months. And we have only one use for them.

What would that one use be?

Tarmac weights, so that the airfield doesn't blow away in the wind,

or

Australia's contribution to subsidizing the US Arms industry?



.

You're close.
It's to support the US in any military conflict. All politics.
They're a hell of a lot more plane than what we need for defense. Any military problems we have down here are from Indonesia, or somewhere further north where they'd have yo cope with the pacific fleet first, and if Indonesia decided to grt boistrous well I bet you can guess what would happen.

Caliban wrote:( The name escapes me... sorry. Might have even been LeMay) described the whole aircraft as '30,000 pieces flying around in close formation'.

That description was of "Old Shaky," the C-124 Globemaster II:



I've never heard it applied to any fighter, bomber, or any other cargo aircraft.

Weird Harold wrote:

Caliban wrote:( The name escapes me... sorry. Might have even been LeMay) described the whole aircraft as '30,000 pieces flying around in close formation'.

That description was of "Old Shaky," the C-124 Globemaster II:



I've never heard it applied to any fighter, bomber, or any other cargo aircraft.

That description could be applied to ANY of the cargo aircraft from that era, i.e. the DC-3 'gooney bird'.

I'll go digging; best ref I currently have is a song lyric by a group called 'Hawkwind', the album was 'Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters'. Weak, I know, but as I say I'll go digging...

Caliban wrote:That description could be applied to ANY of the cargo aircraft from that era, i.e. the DC-3 'gooney bird'.

Could have been, but wasn't. Old Shaky got that nickname because it was so much shakier than its predecessors and contemporaries.

Caliban wrote:2.The so-called 'multi role'aircraft is a dodo. the boys in blue have been spouting that same line of nonsense for decades: anyone remember the F-104? THAT particular defense industry fiasco was perpetuated on the Germans. "Oh, yeah, we can take a high altitude, mach 3(IIRC) razor winged aircraft and turn it into a GROUND SUPPORT AIRCRAFT."( F-104G,'G' for 'Germany', don't ya know)

Mach 2, definitely nowhere close to mach 3.
In fact it just barely breaks past mach 2 most of the time.
( if you want actual mach 3 fighters you need specialist craft like MiG-25 or the proposed fighter version of the SR-71, or at the very least the MiG-31 which still only comes close to M3 (or an F-15 on a really good day, as it can usually not get above M2.6 ) )

Still, the -104 is one of the premier slashfighters. One of those that with very little change could be flown today and still be a serious threat. But not entirely suitable for average pilots, and UNsuitable for rookies.

Used correctly, enemies wont have time to react before they´re getting shot at, used INcorrectly(like trying to get into a turning fight with one), its a flying target practise instead.

Caliban wrote:5. As far as keeping this aircraft active and even keep it in production (at least for parts), well.... Anyone remember a little organization prior to WWII called the AVG? You might remember it better as the 'Flying Tigers'.
Given outdated equipment they accomplished a great deal prior to the US getting 'officially' involved in that conflict.

It should probably be mentioned though that the vast majority of IJA aircraft that they faced were as outdated, or even more outdated.

Caliban wrote:1. The Air Farce( oops! 'scuse me!! Air Force

You obviously mean the Chair Force.