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

Zakharra wrote: That sounds more like pilot error and lack of practice than anything else....

Nope, the performance observed tallies fairly closely with historical performance reports. Everybody was throwing ordnance at the range to remedy "lack of practice" and the range tours were organized for the last week of a four week deployment, so any "practice" failings had pretty much been dealt with.

MAD-4A wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:You've obviously never worked on or with a multi-role aircraft.

actually I was in the NAVY where multi-role is the order of the day.

Must be fairly recent Navy experience then. I spent 20 years working on various versions of an Aircraft designed for the single role of Fleet Air Defense; a role it was superbly refined for in its era. The Navy, and then the Air Force, decided it should be a multi-role fighter bomber instead of an interceptor and turned it into a barely competent fighter with mediocre ground attack capability.

The Air Force also stole the A1E and A7D from the Navy to fill the CAS role the F-4s proved mediocre in, before they bought the A10 to replace them.

And no, Keyboards weren't made of granite, they were built into teletype machines the size of an executive desk. Most of My career was spent on F-4Ds and the APQ-109 Fire Control Radar which had a better range and discrimination from its vacuum tubes than the APQ-120 of the E and G models got from their solid state circuitry. (although specs list equal performance, that's the difference between specs and actual performance.)

The bombing computer and gun-sight on all versions used analog computers (until the taught the Inertial Navigation System to drop bombs.)

The Electric Lawn Darts (aka F-16 Fighting Falcon) were/are all digital and integrated air-to-ground modes into the system from the start, and they are undeniably more accurate than F-4s, but they rely on precision munitions because they're not accurate enough for even routine A/G missions, let alone CAS.

I don't know a great deal about the F/A-18 or Super Hornet. I do know that the basic design should have won the competition against the Electric Lawn Dart, and that they are far more accurate in the A/G role than anything with an 'F' designation.

The Strike Eagles (F-15E) and A/G Tomcats (F14) rely primarily on precision munitions but they're both basically "life extension" mods to turn Air Superiority planes into sod busters.

Granted, there have been very few attack aircraft turned into air-superiority assets, but the A-10 and AV-8 harriers are much tougher targets than one might think, and they both mount AIM-9 sidewinders for self defense.

Weird Harold wrote:Must be fairly recent Navy experience then.

early ‘90s but I’ve always kept up.

Weird Harold wrote:The Air Force also stole the A1E and A7D from the Navy to fill the CAS role the F-4s proved mediocre in, before they bought the A10 to replace them.

actually the A-1 was a great CAS aircraft just no-one liked them because they weren’t a jet – originally designed as a fighter for WWII it came out to late and was re-purposed.

Weird Harold wrote:And no, Keyboards weren't made of granite,

your aware that was a joke? But

Weird Harold wrote: they were built into teletype machines the size of an executive desk.

same thing – I think a friend had a brand new Apple IIC at the time.

Weird Harold wrote:I don't know a great deal about the F/A-18 or Super Hornet. I do know that the basic design should have won the competition against the Electric Lawn Dart, and that they are far more accurate in the A/G role than anything with an 'F' designation.

My grandfather built the F-16 – it had (and still has) far greater performance than the YF-17 / F/A-18 (not sure about the new F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet). Don’t get me wrong, I love the F/A-18 but it’s still underpowered and can't reach Mach-2 and the F-16 can fly the wing off of it in a dog fight. But it has a far superior weapons suite, including the AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile.

Weird Harold wrote:The Strike Eagles (F-15E) and A/G Tomcats (F14) rely primarily on precision munitions but they're both basically "life extension" mods to turn Air Superiority planes into sod busters.

The F-14 was never going to be a decent bomber but the F-15E is a very good strike aircraft – it has long range and (unlike the F-105) if it gets into trouble it can jettison its ordinance and perform as a very good fighter (not as good as the “C” but better than most) kind-of a reverse from what I said of the F-16, it’s a strike aircraft that can fend for itself if needed rather than a fighter pressed into bombing service. But it was never intended as a CAS unit, it’s a strategic strike aircraft (more for missions like runway denial and supply strikes).

Weird Harold wrote:Granted, there have been very few attack aircraft turned into air-superiority assets, but the A-10 and AV-8 harriers are much tougher targets than one might think, and they both mount AIM-9 sidewinders for self-defense.

[/quote] I’m aware of the A-10s reputation at “Cope Thunder”/”Red Flag-Alaska”. The F-16 has held a reputation for being the most maneuverable aircraft in the US inventory (but that has to be qualified by saying “jet fighter”) in “low and slow” dogfight the A-10 can fly its wing off!

MAD-4A wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:Must be fairly recent Navy experience then.

early ‘90s but I’ve always kept up.

So after I retired, and probably born after I got back from Vietnam in June of '70?

MAD-4A wrote:actually the A-1 was a great CAS aircraft just no-one liked them because they weren’t a jet – originally designed as a fighter for WWII it came out to late and was re-purposed.

presented without comment:

http://skyraider.org/skyassn/sartapes/migkill/migkill.htm

MAD-4A wrote:

Weird Harold wrote: they were built into teletype machines the size of an executive desk.

same thing – I think a friend had a brand new Apple IIC at the time.

Not unless he had a time machine; the teletype terminal that introduced me to computers was in '75 or '76 -- vs April 1984 for the introduction of the IIc.

Weird Harold wrote: So after I retired, and probably born after I got back from Vietnam in June of '70?

just before Feb’69

Weird Harold wrote:http://skyraider.org/skyassn/sartapes/migkill/migkill.htm

Yea I knew about that – those Mig pilots had no idea what kinda tail they were grabbing hold of.

Weird Harold wrote:Not unless he had a time machine; the teletype terminal that introduced me to computers was in '75 or '76 -- vs April 1984 for the introduction of the IIc.

ah – yea I misunderstood what time frame you were talking there – mid ‘80s not 70’s – even more the point – sticks, rocks hadn’t been invented yet ( )

MAD-4A wrote:

Weird Harold wrote: So after I retired, and probably born after I got back from Vietnam in June of '70?

just before Feb’69

Weird Harold wrote:http://skyraider.org/skyassn/sartapes/migkill/migkill.htm

Yea I knew about that – those Mig pilots had no idea what kinda tail they were grabbing hold of.

Weird Harold wrote:Not unless he had a time machine; the teletype terminal that introduced me to computers was in '75 or '76 -- vs April 1984 for the introduction of the IIc.

ah – yea I misunderstood what time frame you were talking there – mid ‘80s not 70’s – even more the point – sticks, rocks hadn’t been invented yet ( )

And all the fixed wings had skis for landing gear because the ground was still mud from the great flood (Noah).

MAD-4A wrote:I never said that – don’t put lies in my mouth! I didn’t say don’t buy other aircraft, I said don’t throw away the best just to buy a bunch of cheap crap to save a few bucks for the brass to get bonuses from. Ask any ground pounder what they would like to see over their head (yes any air support is welcome but) they are elated to see an A-10 show up.

You effectively can be claimed to have said that.

Problem is that you only looked at one part of the question "which plane is best" and then stopped there without looking at the reality as a whole at all.

Would infantry prefer having A-10s above? Sure, most of the time they certainly would...

But if the choice turned into picking 10 A-10s doing 20-30 missions per day, or 80 A-29s doing 240-480 missions per day, or 30 Scorpion doing 90-120 missions per day, it´s no longer an automatic choice.

Instead it depends heavily on what the situation overall is.

As such, your blanket statement could mean that you don´t care about the effectiveness as long as it´s the "right" plane providing the support.

If the extra numbers means that you loose a thousand less infantry, by instead loosing 20 out of 80 A-29s, instead of 1 or 2 A-10s out of 10, well i know which i would prefer.

The F-16 is a multi-role aircraft & it’s been consistently good at all its roles.

That is a questionable statement.

The F-16 is a fighter capable of a heavy load of weapons thanks to having a lot of engine power to spare, which it has thanks to being a high performance fighter...

It is more a matter of the basic aircraft being a decent design that makes it able to perform different missions well enough than it being truly suited for all missions it tend to end up with.

And few are the pilots that are fully capable of doing all missions effectively.

and IF something dose pop up {like Chinese Mig knockoffs coming over the border} well they jettison their bombs and fighters are on hand).

Maybe you should bother doing a bit of an update what the Chinese are doing nowadays?

Tenshinai wrote:You effectively can be claimed to have said that.

no I can’t – you can

Tenshinai wrote:Problem is that you only looked at one part of the question "which plane is best" and then stopped there without looking at the reality as a whole at all.

no I didn't

Tenshinai wrote:But if the choice turned into picking 10 A-10s doing 20-30 missions per day, or 80 A-29s doing 240-480 missions per day, or 30 Scorpion doing 90-120 missions per day, it´s no longer an automatic choice.

So, what? your saying, buy a bunch of cheap crap – why stop there lets replace them with (what) about 500 Sopwith Pups, made mostly of canvas and wood, no aluminum needed, we could get them for dirt cheap, way better than 10 A-10s! (& since you need things spelled out – that’s sarcasm)

Tenshinai wrote:As such, your blanket statement could mean that you don´t care about the effectiveness as long as it´s the "right" plane providing the support.

The "right plane" would be the one that provides the most "effective" support, duh. Yours shows you don’t care about the safety of pilots "just send them up in whatever crate and if they don't come back we'll get more" – I said to buy other aircraft too, but not give up the best – you say we should do away with the best and buy up a bunch of cheap crap – which doesn’t matter anyway since (as I pointed out) the Air Force is not interested in buying any more “A” type aircraft (least of all a prop plane). They may pick up a few here and there “for evaluation” as is politically prudent but will never agree to a large mass purchase. The only way the “A-29” will ever be purchased on mass for the Army is if the Army declares the Air Force has reneged on their agreement and purchases them themselves. The Air Force has NO interest in anything but jet “F” ighters & “B”ombers. Certainly not any prop “A” ttack aircraft.

Tenshinai wrote:That is a questionable statement.
The F-16 is a fighter capable of a heavy load of weapons thanks to having a lot of engine power to spare, which it has thanks to being a high performance fighter...

heh , you just contradicted yourself (again) you say its questionable and then your statement says it's true?

Tenshinai wrote:It is more a matter of the basic aircraft being a decent design that makes it able to perform different missions well enough than it being truly suited for all missions it tend to end up with.
And few are the pilots that are fully capable of doing all missions effectively.

I never said it was “truly suited for all missions”. Do you read English? I said it can perform them "adequately" (look the word up) – that means it can get the job done not that its good at it, much less the best.

Tenshinai wrote:Maybe you should bother doing a bit of an update what the Chinese are doing nowadays?

That was an flippant example (you may have to look up that word since you seem not to understand it) it wasn’t meant as literal – like I think the Chinese are really going to go to war with the country buying all their cheap crap, over Afghanistan, duh.

MAD-4A and Tenshinai,

The argument seems to be getting a little heated and personal. Let's please have a little civility.
Mad-4A, I might note that Tenshinai's location is Sweden, so I assume he is Swedish. And while the Swedes have been doing a good job of teaching English as a second language in the school system (at least they were when I was in Stockholm on TDY in the mid 80s), it is still a second language for them. You might keep that in mind when casting aspersions on his understanding of the language - I suspect that your command of Swedish would be much worse. Tak

fallsfromtrees wrote:MAD-4A and Tenshinai,

The argument seems to be getting a little heated and personal. Let's please have a little civility.
Mad-4A, I might note that Tenshinai's location is Sweden, so I assume he is Swedish. And while the Swedes have been doing a good job of teaching English as a second language in the school system (at least they were when I was in Stockholm on TDY in the mid 80s), it is still a second language for them. You might keep that in mind when casting aspersions on his understanding of the language - I suspect that your command of Swedish would be much worse. Tak

If Tenshinai is Swedish, his proficiency in The Queen's english may be the problem when conversing with us Americans.