• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Guitar

The Wart Hog gets a repreive

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, most likely. Hard to believe it beat the AT-6B. Procurement still mistifies me. I would think it would have lower logistical support and life cycle costs:

 

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/at-6b-light-attack/

 

But I really, really like this bad boy, the Combat Dragon II.

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-amazing-ov-10-bronco-was-never-allowed-to-meet-its-1695837367

Look around at the articles about the winner and you will find the Pentagon's reason for dismissing the AT6. Bottom line they didn't get a bunch of pretty simple to fix bugs worked out before the deadline. The tone of the Pentagon's explanation indicates a loss of faith in the ability of the people in that Beech/whoever consortium.

The super tucano was built as a weapons carrier/ground attack plane. The texan 2 and the plane it is based on, the pc9, wasn't. It had to be modified to take on that role.

 

The super tucano is a much better plane.

The Congress critters and senators from the Hawker/Beech states blocked the Pentagon's purchase of 100 of the things for a couple years now with the help of a couple lawsuits and the courts. Seems jobs are more important than what the Pentagon wants for soldiers in the field....sometimes.

Yeah. I know some of the history.

 

 

Remember when those elected bastards were more subtle?

 

 

 

Ps. You say jobs but you really mean votes......

 

 

Pps. Hawker. A not famous enough Australian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even with predictive video algorithms, you just can't keep up. You either deal with it (predator/reaper) of move to a monitored but autonomous system.

"monitored but autonomous system"

we found that a stabilized image was the only way to go - can't handle changing image or moving targets very well, but just fine for locking on autonomous optical or IR weapon systems - move the curser across the image to the desired lock on point - once it's locked on and you confirm the lock on - and you are good to go

X-47 is just a prototype.

I know - but with all the weapons of the future being faster and higher g loading than manned Aircraft, seems like it's the way forward. unmanned systems are the future for the ground too- for the Military it's supply trucks. and for you and me its google cars

 

Until you take the man out of the kill chain, the pipe required for weapon's release info and release will limit what you can do pretty dramatically. Not sure if we will ever allow an autonomous system to make a kill decision. Aegis, CWIS, AWG-9/Phoenix and other other fire control systems have had "full auto" for decades but nobody is brave enough to enable them other than CWIS is very specific circumstances.

 

"Dear Mrs. Jones. I am sorry to inform you that a software bug killed your son today. The Autonomous Hunter/Killer drone mistook his fishing boat for an attacking terrorist. "

 

Technically possible for an autonomous system to operate the kill chain from start to finish. May be one day we'll establish a pure kill ox that allows it but don;t see it happening soon. Slippery slope to autonomous war. "let the machines fight it out."

http://www.hofstralawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/DD.1.Evans_.final2_.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The f-35 has major bugs in its avionics computers. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/f-35-software-overrun-with-bugs-dod-testing-chief-warns/

 

$400 billion dollars. 10%of our national annual tax revenue for a plane that has software bugs.

For a plane who can't fly to its own performance evenelope let alone to the previous generation abilities.

 

Pushing forward is a good thing cost plus contracts are always bad.

 

The a-10 will be flying for another 4-5 years doing damage and saving troops lives.

 

 

Sorry about linking incorrectly but I can't bring up the full editor on my phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F-35 busted for busting Mach?

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/mystery-sonic-boom-did-not-come-from-atlantic-city-base-1755786208

 

"Just what the hell was that sonic boom everyone heard in New York and New Jersey this afternoon? Nobody has come forward to claim responsibility for the audible anomaly. UPDATE: It’s probably from the Navy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even with predictive video algorithms, you just can't keep up. You either deal with it (predator/reaper) of move to a monitored but autonomous system.

"monitored but autonomous system"

we found that a stabilized image was the only way to go - can't handle changing image or moving targets very well, but just fine for locking on autonomous optical or IR weapon systems - move the curser across the image to the desired lock on point - once it's locked on and you confirm the lock on - and you are good to go

X-47 is just a prototype.

I know - but with all the weapons of the future being faster and higher g loading than manned Aircraft, seems like it's the way forward. unmanned systems are the future for the ground too- for the Military it's supply trucks. and for you and me its google cars
You obviously didn't get the memo that we don't need high G anymore. The F35 and successors will do everything over the horizon, no need to get close enough that G forces matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it's over the horizon, why do you need a human-piloted plane at all?

Just put some honking big weapons platform out there that can stay aloft forever with tankers bringing it juice once in awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a conservative progressive (I inhabit my own pigeon hole) isn't there a lot to be said for a drone that cannot be hacked? For a combat plane cheap enough to risk actual losses in combat? For a plane capable of taking off even if there is a bit of debris in the field and completing its mission even if people are shooting old fashioned bullets at it? In my post kindergarten lifetime we have fought countless militias, guerrillas, banana republics and insurgencies. We fought a second tier military twice. We are unlikely to fight WW II again and much less likely to survive. But if the glorious leader of North Korea went crazy we would face 4000 tanks. All are antique, some are able to move without a tow truck. The A 10 is an inexpensive way to destroy a lot of junk quickly. It is also a plane that exists, not some future project doomed to be screwed up by mission creep, corrupt procurement and politics that require some widget to be manufactured in every Congressional district that will vote for it, even if it means adding olive colored fuzzy dice to the cockpit. It was also fun to watch the guard buzzing a few hundred feet over farm trucks as they trained, presumable pretending the IH was a T72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The f-35 has major bugs in its avionics computers. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/f-35-software-overrun-with-bugs-dod-testing-chief-warns/

 

$400 billion dollars. 10%of our national annual tax revenue for a plane that has software bugs.

For a plane who can't fly to its own performance evenelope let alone to the previous generation abilities.

 

Pushing forward is a good thing cost plus contracts are always bad.

 

The a-10 will be flying for another 4-5 years doing damage and saving troops lives.

 

 

Sorry about linking incorrectly but I can't bring up the full editor on my phone.

 

No worries. They've hashed out problems like that before in the thing.

 

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/f35-delays-sentience/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy BRRRRRRTTTTT day. ^_^

 

If I was a grunt, I'd be feeling pretty good about this.

 

Those boots on the ground deserve all the protection we can give them,

beancounters and big picture strategists be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now, i love the hog...

 

but i do have to wonder what can the hog do that the apache/cobra cant?

Great question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now, i love the hog...

 

but i do have to wonder what can the hog do that the apache/cobra cant?

Glide.

 

I'd bet the A10 handles being shot up a heck of a lot better. Pretty tough ass plane, helicopters achieve flight through voodoo and witchcraft in my opinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but i do have to wonder what can the hog do that the apache/cobra can't?

 

Glide.

 

I'd bet the A10 handles being shot up a heck of a lot better. Pretty tough ass plane, helicopters achieve flight through voodoo and witchcraft in my opinion....

ha ha - don't think the A10 glides so good at 200 kts and 500 ft.

 

my marine corps helicopter pals alternatively say the helicopters are flying lawnmowers, or the helicopter flies by just beating the air into submission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the apache is armored pretty well, even separate tubs for pilot and gunner

 

also the apache and cobra, super cobra, viper are as about as fast as the A10 at attack speed - plus the apache - viper can aim the gun off axis, plus the apache - viper has explosive rounds - better for soft targets, as opposed to the A10 depleted uranium rounds - which are good for armor - not so good for soft targets

 

plus the Apache-viper are owned and controlled by the army & marines - A10 is air force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but don't we have lots and lots of helis?

Maybe it's just that enlisted guys fly choppers, so it's not as sexy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but i do have to wonder what can the hog do that the apache/cobra can't?Glide.I'd bet the A10 handles being shot up a heck of a lot better. Pretty tough ass plane, helicopters achieve flight through voodoo and witchcraft in my opinion....

ha ha - don't think the A10 glides so good at 200 kts and 500 ft.my marine corps helicopter pals alternatively say the helicopters are flying lawnmowers, or the helicopter flies by just beating the air into submission

Nah. Helicopters don't fly. They are so ugly that the earth repels them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the apache is armored pretty well, even separate tubs for pilot and gunner

 

also the apache and cobra, super cobra, viper are as about as fast as the A10 at attack speed - plus the apache - viper can aim the gun off axis, plus the apache - viper has explosive rounds - better for soft targets, as opposed to the A10 depleted uranium rounds - which are good for armor - not so good for soft targets

 

plus the Apache-viper are owned and controlled by the army & marines - A10 is air force

 

Same speed? No, apache cruise = ~150kts. A-10 cruise = ~300kts. A-10 has a lot more loiter time as well.

 

As for the 30mm rounds from the A-10 not being high explosive, not true. They can carry either the Anti-armor rounds or HEI (hi explosive incendiary) rounds. Or a mix. I'm sure for most CAS missions, they are carrying the PGU-13/B HEI rounds almost exclusively.

 

The other big difference is operational structure. The A-10s will typically be on call to whatever customer needs them whereas the Apache/Cobra is usually organic to a particular ground maneuver unit or dedicated to an area. If there is a firefight going on where there are no dedicated helo gunships, then the A-10 is the 911 first responder. There's nothing wrong with the Apache, its just horses for courses.

 

As for the A-10 being AF and not army and that being a problem, let me quickly dispel you of that notion. Unlike most other USAF fighters who do CAS as a side job, the A-10 for all intents might as well be an Army asset. They (A-10s) live and breath Army doctrine and work with ground pounders almost every day in training.

 

However. the marines are a bit different. IME, they prefer their own organic CAS - whether it be Harriers or Hornets or Cobras. They won't turn down an A-10 if it showed up overhead - but they tend to call their own Air assets first and then call USAF when they've run out of Marine jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now, i love the hog...

 

but i do have to wonder what can the hog do that the apache/cobra cant?

 

Show up.

 

See Desert Storm. The theory the Apache and Cobra had rendered the A10 obsolete didn't pan out in the Iraq in the 90's. They were too vulnerable to ground fire from infantry and the dusty-ass sand played hell with maintenance. Wasn't uncommon for less than half of them being flyable on any given day. It was a desert thang. No trees and no hills means every grunt with a rifle in a foxhole within a half mile or so radius has nothing better to do but take pot shots at the choppers so they drew every bit of fire they had. Wasn't long before even the A10's were kept pretty high too, and the Brit's started keeping their Tornados even higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the apache is armored pretty well, even separate tubs for pilot and gunner

 

also the apache and cobra, super cobra, viper are as about as fast as the A10 at attack speed - plus the apache - viper can aim the gun off axis, plus the apache - viper has explosive rounds - better for soft targets, as opposed to the A10 depleted uranium rounds - which are good for armor - not so good for soft targets

 

plus the Apache-viper are owned and controlled by the army & marines - A10 is air force

 

Same speed? No, apache cruise = ~150kts. A-10 cruise = ~300kts. A-10 has a lot more loiter time as well.

 

As for the 30mm rounds from the A-10 not being high explosive, not true. They can carry either the Anti-armor rounds or HEI (hi explosive incendiary) rounds. Or a mix. I'm sure for most CAS missions, they are carrying the PGU-13/B HEI rounds almost exclusively.

 

The other big difference is operational structure. The A-10s will typically be on call to whatever customer needs them whereas the Apache/Cobra is usually organic to a particular ground maneuver unit or dedicated to an area. If there is a firefight going on where there are no dedicated helo gunships, then the A-10 is the 911 first responder. There's nothing wrong with the Apache, its just horses for courses.

 

As for the A-10 being AF and not army and that being a problem, let me quickly dispel you of that notion. Unlike most other USAF fighters who do CAS as a side job, the A-10 for all intents might as well be an Army asset. They (A-10s) live and breath Army doctrine and work with ground pounders almost every day in training.

 

However. the marines are a bit different. IME, they prefer their own organic CAS - whether it be Harriers or Hornets or Cobras. They won't turn down an A-10 if it showed up overhead - but they tend to call their own Air assets first and then call USAF when they've run out of Marine jets.

 

 

Circle+Jerk.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Some minor corrections

thx Jeff - but for instance, the optical agm 130 and the MBDA UAE PGM series are autonomous, both lock on before or after launch, plus the French apache too. but yea - they are too big for UCASs. maybe UCASs can fly the SDB - they are GPS and now GPS / laser. everyone wants the brimstone (hellfire variant, shoot and forget ), but the Brits can't make it fast enoughyes, the laser guided ones require constant lasing - but the laser target designator can be remote, 2-3 km away and the wpn launch point can be 3-5 km away, or possibly 10s of kms away, in fact, almost counter intuitively, the further away from the target the more accurate the shot. guns are no good further than 1 km - and shooting guns means a straight run for many seconds. and low and slow is no good if the bad guys have even a '60s radar guided ZSU23 quad. what can survive a few 7.62 rounds or a couple of 12mm rounds would be in big trouble with a few 23 mm rdsbut as for your point about 1-2 sec delay - that's a long time and only a stabilized system can control that - the operators have made it work - but it is difficultfor the future of UCAS see the Northrop navy X-47 - it has demonstrated air to air refueling (to a drogue type refueling basket) and carrier take off and landings - I think this one is only a prototype and the next version may look similar, but all the internals will be very different. all the stealth aircraft look like the F-22, A-12, B-2, and now X-47 - inside is all different tho

For any dynamic crew in the loop targeting, latency and bandwidth is a killer for RPA. Where you are on the earth matters not. It's the up and down to the sat that you can't get around. Similar to STEL in the 80's and 90's when it was hard to synch a STU due to latency, a bounce off the sat creates 200 USec of delay (+- depending on orbit). We found 160 USec to be disruptive in interoperable systems. Basically a 1 frame delay in a 60 hz display. Even with predictive video algorithms, you just can't keep up. You either deal with it (predator/reaper) of move to a monitored but autonomous system.

 

X-47 is just a prototype. My next door neighbor wrote the control laws for the landing system and extrapolated that to the closed loop refueling gains. The aircraft is only to demonstrate the a ability of an autonomous system to land, taxi and take off from the carrier Basically to integrate with the normal flight deck operation. General Naval Aviation preach is a system has to. It it's space on the flight deck. The UCLAS excel,met program can't figure out what it wants to be. Attack aircraft?, fighter wingman? Tactical ISR? Navy can't seem to figure it out and congressional funding is starting to look a bit "directive" in the 2016 budget. Great to see it do some hard stuff (CV Ops, drogue refuelling) so we know it can go to the ship. we just don't have a mission set for the program yet.

 

 

Great to see that IB occasionally does recreational drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the US aircraft are fucking awesome till Putin shows up. Then they fuck off to Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All the US aircraft are fucking awesome till Putin shows up. Then they fuck off to Libya.

Putin flies aircraft?

 

I thought he was in the cavalry.

well Putin is shown shirtless on a horse quite often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The f-35 has major bugs in its avionics computers. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/f-35-software-overrun-with-bugs-dod-testing-chief-warns/

 

$400 billion dollars. 10%of our national annual tax revenue for a plane that has software bugs.

For a plane who can't fly to its own performance evenelope let alone to the previous generation abilities.

 

Pushing forward is a good thing cost plus contracts are always bad.

 

The a-10 will be flying for another 4-5 years doing damage and saving troops lives.

 

 

Sorry about linking incorrectly but I can't bring up the full editor on my phone.

Compliments of the Obama IT crew. Best in the world at spending money and producing buggy junk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The f-35 has major bugs in its avionics computers. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/f-35-software-overrun-with-bugs-dod-testing-chief-warns/

 

$400 billion dollars. 10%of our national annual tax revenue for a plane that has software bugs.

For a plane who can't fly to its own performance evenelope let alone to the previous generation abilities.

 

Pushing forward is a good thing cost plus contracts are always bad.

 

The a-10 will be flying for another 4-5 years doing damage and saving troops lives.

 

 

Sorry about linking incorrectly but I can't bring up the full editor on my phone.

Compliments of the Obama IT crew. Best in the world at spending money and producing buggy junk.

 

You do realize that Obama had nothing to do with the F35 Right... It was the shrubs people that made the order.... Obama was stuck with the bloated contract...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please, the program was started in the mid-90s (under Clinton), the contract was awarded to Lockheed in 2001 (under Bush), and the first flight was in 2006 (also under Bush).

 

The program is a complete boondoggle but spare us all this "Obama IT crew" bullshit. It's lazy, it's objectively incorrect and you look dumb saying it.

 

There's plenty of fault you can find with the current administration; continued lack of direction in the LCS program and failure to find the funds to keep the F-22 production line open are two good examples. Development issues within the JSF program are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Air Force couldn't find the oil refineries or the massive convoys of trucks going to Turkey. Now that the Russians have bombed them, why hasn't they sent in the F22s to sort this out? Wouldn't the warthogs have been useful in destroying convoys and facilities?

 

Oh, sorry, I forgot. No one is supposed to know that the US is supporting IS. "Look over there, some thing shiny!"

 

Carry on. They just let the Russians do it.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Christ, you're really getting your news from Russia Today. If you think the US is supporting ISIL, you're just truly, hopelessly, ignorant.

 

The US has destroyed numerous oil convoys the only difference is they try and limit civilian casualties in the process. The entire air campaign is designed to degrade ISIL whilst minimizing collateral damage. The Russians are using unguided bombs from high altitudes because they don't give a fuck.

 

Were you getting a bit of a chubby during the last Republican debate when Ted Cruz was talking about carpet bombing Syria? Luckily for the rest of the world, General MacFarland and everyone else with a say in the matter thinks that's a really dumb idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Christ, you're really getting your news from Russia Today. If you think the US is supporting ISIL, you're just truly, hopelessly, ignorant.

 

The US has destroyed numerous oil convoys the only difference is they try and limit civilian casualties in the process. The entire air campaign is designed to degrade ISIL whilst minimizing collateral damage. The Russians are using unguided bombs from high altitudes because they don't give a fuck.

 

Were you getting a bit of a chubby during the last Republican debate when Ted Cruz was talking about carpet bombing Syria? Luckily for the rest of the world, General MacFarland and everyone else with a say in the matter thinks that's a really dumb idea.

 

You now understand why most of us consider randumb a complete laughable tool here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Christ, you're really getting your news from Russia Today. If you think the US is supporting ISIL, you're just truly, hopelessly, ignorant.

 

The US has destroyed numerous oil convoys the only difference is they try and limit civilian casualties in the process. The entire air campaign is designed to degrade ISIL whilst minimizing collateral damage. The Russians are using unguided bombs from high altitudes because they don't give a fuck.

 

Were you getting a bit of a chubby during the last Republican debate when Ted Cruz was talking about carpet bombing Syria? Luckily for the rest of the world, General MacFarland and everyone else with a say in the matter thinks that's a really dumb idea.

 

Ah, now I understand why the US couldn't destroy the convoys transporting oil, they were afraid of hurting ragheads? Or was it that if IS sold the oil to Turkey they woudl be cashed up to buy more weapons from the US? I can't decide.

 

Either way the Russians fucked up that little game and made the US look like complete useless fuckwits.

 

But about limiting civilian casualties? What planet are you on? Was this concern there in Iraq?

 

"How many people have died in Iraq since 2003?

"Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion."

 

So after that, you expect me to believe that the US did not bomb IS controlled Oil Refineries because they didn't want to hurt them? You really are a stupid cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistakes happen, but when they keep happening you have to start to wonder. US supplying IS. IS - US. US - IS, they even look and sound the same! No wonder they make mistakes.

 

Middle East Officials Question ”Convenient Mistakes” Of US Airdrops To Al-Qaeda

As the “convenient” and “accidental” airdrops of weapons and supplies by the US and NATO into the hands of ISIS and al-Qaeda jihadists fighting inside both Syria and Iraq begin to draw more attention throughout largely alternative media outlets, such convenient mistakes are also being questioned by national governments, particularly those who may be in the crosshairs of NATO in the very near future.

 

Individuals who have come to question the nature of the allegedly accidental air drops are legion, but one of the more recent and high profile skeptics is the Commander of Iran’s Basij Force, Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Naqdi.

 

In an address to a group of Basij forces on January 5, Naqdi stated that “The US directly supports the ISIL in Iraq and the US planes drop the needed aids and weapons for ISIL in Iraq …” In addition, he stated that the US Embassy in Baghdad is the command center for ISIL and other “takfiri” militants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't heard much of a discussion of the Spectre gun ships in here. I would think the Air Force would have the same issues as with the A-10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't heard much of a discussion of the Spectre gun ships in here. I would think the Air Force would have the same issues as with the A-10.

The J model of the AC-130 is focused on precision-guided munitions, with only a single 30mm Bushmaster and maybe retaining the 105 piece mounted aft. The AC-130W "Stinger II" variants were repurposed from MC-130W airframes and carry a Bushmaster and a combination of small-diameter bombs and standoff PGMs. It's interesting to note that the Marines have weaponized some of their KC-130 tankers with the Harvest Hawk suite including targeting and a mix of Hellfire and Griffin missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Air Force Material Command Announces Plans To Keep A-10 Warthogs Flying ‘Indefinitely’

BY EDITORIAL STAFF · PUBLISHED

 

OCTOBER 27, 201 6

 

 

 

Capture-178.jpg

The Air Force Material Command (AFMC) is bringing the A-10 depot line responsible for A-10 maintenance and repair back to full capacity. Despite announcements that the Air Force would being retiring the A-10 in 2018 AFMC chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski recently told Aviation Week that they plan to keep the A-10 in the air “indefinitely.”

The Warthog is currently the only Air Force plane being used for the sole purpose of close-air support (CAS). The U.S. military relies heavily on (CAS) in the battle against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. The iconic GAU-8 Avenger 30-millimeter gatling gun found at the nose of the aircraft and its “low and slow” flying capabilities have made it an invaluable resource for missions against ISIS. Pawlikowski told reporters:

“Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely.”

There are currently 283 A-10s in the Air Force. Most of the maintenance takes place at Hill Air Force Base in Utah and service members there are preparing for increased capacity. They were able increase the availability rate of the A-10 from 63 to 68 percent last year and are hoping to continue to improve, according to Aviation Week.

Many of the military officials and congressmen that oppose keeping the A-10 battle ready hope to retire the aircraft so they may redistribute the funds into the chronically delayed F-35 program. Others hope to replace the A-10 with two completely separate aircraft; either a modified existing turboprop plane or a new aircraft designed from scratch.

However, despite these agendas the A-10 has proved to be an indispensable tool in the fight against terror and will remain in the air for an “indefinite” period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They lack electronic gizmos and cannot see through smoke without the camera on a smart weapon. They are older then all my toys but one, designed when we feared Soviet tank batallions and needed weapons rather then wealth distribution systems. Therefore they work. They are usually ready to fly when required. They exist. They are rugged. The military knows that any new weapon system will be lucky to achieve one of these three milestones, and so expensive they will have to settle for a dozen purchased at one Trump each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sleep better knowing that somewhere, Warthogs are fueled and ready.

 

I'm sure that the boots on the ground are quite pleased with this news. It's almost like the suits back in Washington give enough of a shit about them to provide close air support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine this has the engine weenies freaking out right now. Hard to forecast part buys and manage life cycle limited parts in an indefinite environment, much less get it produced in a timely manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where there's a will there's a way. Got a guy three houses from mine who says he has the only machine in existence to manufacture a certain frivit thingy (looks like a ceramic straight pretzel about one inch long but hollow) which serves to insulate the mounting of some panels in B-52s. He bought it from Boeing when they closed the production line decades ago. In his basement he makes about a hundred of the things or so a year at $50.00 each. Says it takes him about a day to make a year's worth and 90% of the effort is in keeping the beast functioning. Everything that breaks on the machine he has to make. He's a retired Boeing machinist so it's always a can-do but sometimes it takes him a month to get the one production day a-happenin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would cost a wee bit more than that lot re-start production, major problem being they destroyed the tooling. This was ordered by the government for some reason back when they stopped production. They would certainly demand a re-engineering project and associated BS before they would approve a new start so....

 

The cost of maintaining the things is an ever-increasing problem so the AF has long tried to get rid of them. The problem with getting rid of them in NG units is then you have a whole bunch of Congress critters who want to keep that gub'mint cheeze flowing. Then there is the problem of the thing refusing to become useless.

"Wee more"?

 

Destroying the tooling was the idea of McNamara and his "whiz kids". Build systems to a determined inventory level at an efficient rate and unit price and then shut down the production line entirely. Reasonable thought given we were paying high preservation and storage costs for tooling that wasn't planned to be used again. Consider that in 1988, we were building about 135 F/a-18's per year for US and allied buyers and even more F-16's. Then think about the rate effect and how efficient is is to buy 12 F/A-18's per year today with similar engineering and manufacturing overheads.

 

You are correct on the maintenance costs. A restart today would want to fix a lot of the maintenance issues, bring those TF-34 engines into the present at least and update safety and survivable to systems. Then you'd have a new one trick pony. It's a hell of a trick at the right time but it's still a limited role.

 

 

Did McNamara ever do anything right?

 

How that guy maintained his image as a big brain has always escaped me - his career was nothing but one catastrophic fuckup after another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It would cost a wee bit more than that lot re-start production, major problem being they destroyed the tooling. This was ordered by the government for some reason back when they stopped production. They would certainly demand a re-engineering project and associated BS before they would approve a new start so....

 

The cost of maintaining the things is an ever-increasing problem so the AF has long tried to get rid of them. The problem with getting rid of them in NG units is then you have a whole bunch of Congress critters who want to keep that gub'mint cheeze flowing. Then there is the problem of the thing refusing to become useless.

"Wee more"?

 

Destroying the tooling was the idea of McNamara and his "whiz kids". Build systems to a determined inventory level at an efficient rate and unit price and then shut down the production line entirely. Reasonable thought given we were paying high preservation and storage costs for tooling that wasn't planned to be used again. Consider that in 1988, we were building about 135 F/a-18's per year for US and allied buyers and even more F-16's. Then think about the rate effect and how efficient is is to buy 12 F/A-18's per year today with similar engineering and manufacturing overheads.

 

You are correct on the maintenance costs. A restart today would want to fix a lot of the maintenance issues, bring those TF-34 engines into the present at least and update safety and survivable to systems. Then you'd have a new one trick pony. It's a hell of a trick at the right time but it's still a limited role.

Did McNamara ever do anything right?

 

How that guy maintained his image as a big brain has always escaped me - his career was nothing but one catastrophic fuckup after another.

Yeah, but his successors included Rumsfeld so he had a favorable comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Did McNamara ever do anything right?

 

 

 

Ford Falcon!

 

 

and he helpte killde JFK withoute getteng in troubelle or evan blammed

 

 

aer threr blak coptershelo frying ovirhede?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this