Save it or scrap it?

love the warthog! save it, but no one listens to me. they'd rather scrap and claim they need a bigger budget for new ones.

 

The real solution is to transfer these aircraft to the Army. The stupid limitation of the army only having "helicopters" as ground attach air vehicles for the army close air support is the core problem. This results in the Air Force paying for army stuff and the Army using something much easier to shoot down than the Warthog for providing close air support under Army operational control.

(Half a wing or one whole engine on the Warthog can be shot off and the Warthog still returns. Remove a sliver of either a helicopter main rotor or tail rotor and down it comes.)

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

 

+1 keep it!

 

The A-10 was a great plane but with the exception of the B-52, every weapon system reaches the end-of-life. If we could afford build more B-2s, the B-52 would become scrap. But the A-10 has probably reached the end of its design life.

Personally, I like the direction of unmanned drones. Without humans, they can loiter a long, long time while the operators can swap-out, sip a cuppa coffee, and go to the bathroom. Improvements are needed:

• A weight-hog to replace the A-10
• Inflight refueling and a drone tanker
• Additional optical, at least a pair
• Broad-spectrum imagery
• Stealth
• Drone air-to-air defense and offense (the bad guys read too!)

The A-10 is a great, ground support aircraft but it is manned. Take out the human and a lot of weight becomes payload, fuel, and ordinance.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob, I would point out that close air support right at the razor thin separation between the good guys and bad guys needs a human in the loop at the trigger. While drones may be perfect for many missions, most of the A-10 missions will not work via satellite drone control.

 

WW-I


WW-II - Fritz X


WW-II BQ-17



Current, short-range technology that only requires a laser designator.

Aircraft performance already exceeds human abilities but are burdened by the weight of systems to support a 170 lbs of air-breathing, temperature limited, stress and optically limited human. Time to take the man out of the loop in tactical ground attack.

Personally, I would like to see a camera and target seekers in these:


I'm into accuracy and remote sensors and drones push us that way.

Bob Wilson

 

Warthog....... ground pounders' best friend! Keep them, like the Buff: upgrades and rebuilds are the way to go.

DBCassidy

 

i think the nsa just logged onto priuschat.

 

What makes you think they weren't here already?

 

good point.

 

They should totally keep them. But of course, armchair generals in the Pentagon apparently know what's best for our troops, and because the A-10 is a working system, it will likely get it axed. Just like when the Army said they didn't need more tanks, and Congress naturally gave them budgeting for more tanks.

That said, this is definitely one of my favorite sounds when I was in the Army. While I didn't see combat (thankfully, though I did deploy to Kosovo and Korea), I did see these guys flying in for some training missions, and wow is it a morale booster for us, while simultaneously scaring the crap out of whoever's on the receiving end of this thing:

 

You know, I never really considered the warthog "ugly". Different, yes, especially compared to others such as the F-15 or F-18.

And I'm sure the boots on the ground don't care what they look like, so long as the enemy is getting hammered by the A-10's.

I'd say they should transfer them to the Army, since its primary role is to support the Army units anyway.

 

Then too, this might be an interesting experiment:

• Those big, slow turning props are hard to hear . . . I hear

Bob Wilson

 

I'm old-school and sentimental about such things myself, but hanging on to the past only stifles innovation and development. Newer alternatives can better fulfill the role of a ground-attack aircraft.

The British air forces were decimated at the beginning of WWII because they were still relying on WWI technology. The inventor of the jet engine , Frank Whittle was almost driven mad by the reluctance of the RAF to take his ideas seriously throughout the 1930s. It was only when Britain was facing almost certain defeat by the Luftwaffe, that they began to seriously commit to advanced aeronautical development.

 

In some ways, perhaps, but the Fairey Swordfish biplane was so obsolete at the time that the anti-aircraft guns on the German battleship Bismarck couldn't track such a slow aircraft, and some of them were able to get through and damage the rudder, which ultimately led to her sinking. A lucky accident, not superior technology.

Yes, but by that time, Britain had learned a lot of humiliating lessons about being falsely prepared, and had already brought out their A-game.