I couldn't remember which thread we discussed this on but I saw this article today. The A-10 continues to show that it belong in the arsenal. I agree with whoever said if the Air Force doesn't want it, give it to the Army or Marines who it supports anyway. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/2...-as-it-faces-pentagon-cuts/?intcmp=latestnews
We lost bunch of threads when the Old Roundtable had to be cleaned up. But THIS ONE had a bunch of A-10 comments.
The Warthog is a badass machine. Truly awesome. It's my favorite right next to the now-retired A4, simplicity at it's finest.
Our sister squadron at NAS New Orleans was an A-10 unit and I loved watching those things come and go.
A great example of how a definite purpose aircraft can shine through multiple eras of technology. Similar to the B-52 adapted to modern technology and tactics still doing a great job. The F-35 will never provide the capability to support ground troops the Hog does.
Me too. The Scooter looked like a toy on the deck next to a big honking' Phantom. But the pilots who flew it loved it and it had to be the most cost-effective Navy jet ever. Long life, too. In the Falklands war, the Argentine Army was worse than a joke and their Navy basically avoided a fight when they weren't sinking. Only their naval airpower with those long range French Exocet missiles ever did any damage to the British. But the Argentine Air Force flying old surplus A-4's bored right in with iron bombs at low level taking high casualties and hit 11 ships, sinking five of them. Think what you will about the Argentine soldiers, but their pilots had big brass balls.
The Phantom was faster but the A4 was way cheaper and carried more bombs. I read the following on a forum and it's just 2 years old. Made me chuckle no matter how unlikely. "SO here in Oregon a community is trying to get the USS Ranger, retired Forrestal class carrier, as a floating museum. Thinking about the Ranger led to the A4, one helluva capable aircraft. Give it the most upgraded J52 engine with 12k thrust up from 9300, and it's STOL, baby. It can go up to 16k thrust with an afterburner. Perfect for ski-jump carriers, and dirt cheap to buy and maintain compared to Harriers. With smart munitions a 250 lb SDB that hits its target is much, much more effective than a 500 or 1000 pounder. LEss collateral damage too. Or deploy with 70mm hydras (guided and otherwise) and a GAU-12 25mm gatling gun for CAS missions. The A4 could even supplement No-Fly missions with modern avionics and A-A missiles. I KNOW THIS ISN'T A 5th GEN AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. The Marines don't need that. A carrier off the coast of Somalia doesn't need that. Besides, do we really want to send in a 150 million dollar F35b into CAS missions where the enemy doesn't have any radar-guided AA defenses? I'm talking reality, not fantasy here. 2500 F35s is a fantasy. We'll be lucky to get 500 - 1000 through the budgetary meat-grinder that is coming. Also I'm clearly not saying the exact 1950's design A-4, but a similarly-capable aircraft. Single-engine, 6000lb payload with full fuel load for CAS loiter, buddy-fueling capability, high sub-mach. Not the highest tech tool in the box, but then again neither is the A-10 and the Marines would collectively sport one giant chubby if they could get a carrier version of the Warthog, now wouldn't they?"
The F-15 did. I read an article about an Isreali pilot who had a wing shot off and was able to fly back to base and land. It showed pictures and everything.
