|
A-10
Feb 23, 2016 1:52:25 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 23, 2016 1:52:25 GMT
Chuck, That is my opinion as well regarding the word expeditionary. What it was, was an as needed force of A-10 units to fill a force void. Yet it was not really a void as that is what the Guard and Reserve exist for. The 104th and other Guard units may have won The Air Force versions of Top Gun competitions more times than their regular Air Force brethren, in the last 20 years. Gunsmoke depicted in the attached is one of those competitions and assorted videos. www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJVRtjsFjMw
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 23, 2016 2:27:33 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 23, 2016 2:27:33 GMT
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
A-10
Feb 26, 2016 18:48:23 GMT
Post by dave on Feb 26, 2016 18:48:23 GMT
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 26, 2016 20:38:50 GMT
Post by quincannon on Feb 26, 2016 20:38:50 GMT
No, a thousand times no. What is required is a replacement dedicated ground support aircraft that meets the needs of the next 30 years and possibly beyond. A replacement is as vital to the Army of tomorrow as the Stuka, Stormovic, and Corsair was to the armies, and Corps they served. If the Air Force does not want to develop one, then for God sake change the roles and missions binding agreements between the USA and the USAF, and let the Army develop their own.
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 26, 2016 21:41:26 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 26, 2016 21:41:26 GMT
Just don't make it the 35, am beginning to believe that is a boondoggle.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
A-10
Feb 29, 2016 19:28:10 GMT
Post by dave on Feb 29, 2016 19:28:10 GMT
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 29, 2016 21:47:39 GMT
Post by quincannon on Feb 29, 2016 21:47:39 GMT
They are all boondoggles Tom, but some boondoggles are better than others.
The F-35 may be a bridge too far in capabilities, having one version for the Navy, another for the Marines, and still another for the Air Force. The Marines need the vertical lift to replace the aging Harrier. What the Navy needs is a new Corsair or Skyraider, simple, durable, and one while not able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, is tougher that woodpecker lips a flying dump truck. The Air Force needs to get their heads out of their blue sky ass, a change of attitude toward close air support. Today that is the primary mission, because very few can challenge us in the blue sky. The threat on the ground is still great, and air support above the rotary wing level is vital. The problem is with their attitude, for in their minds they are still Rickenbacker, fighting the Flying Circus.
WE GROW FAR TOO FOND OF OUR OWN TECHNOLOGY ---- and one day that fondness is going to bite us in the ass.
|
|
|
A-10
Mar 15, 2016 10:33:59 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 15, 2016 10:33:59 GMT
|
|
|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 0:23:12 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 6, 2016 0:23:12 GMT
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 4:29:01 GMT
Post by dave on Dec 6, 2016 4:29:01 GMT
Let me see? All of these planes are as old as the A10 or fairly close. I favor providing the very best equipment for our military but where do we start? The B 52 is as old as I am for Pete's sake! and the C 130 is damn near as old as I am bu they are still going strong. If the Air Force wants to replace the A 10 with another platform let us insure it is capable to perform the job and not just a cost savings. Regards Dave
US Air Force B 52 1955 operational C 130 1956 operational F 15 1976 operational A 10 1977 operational F 18 1983 operational CH-53E 1981 operational MH-60G 1982 operational B-1 B 1986
US Navy and US Marine Corps F 16 1978 operational MH-53E 1981 operational
US Army UH-60 1979 operational AH-64 1986
|
|
|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 15:31:14 GMT
Post by quincannon on Dec 6, 2016 15:31:14 GMT
Dave: If the Air Force wanted a light, relatively cheap, low maintenance ground support aircraft they could use the design of either the Corsair or the Skyraider. Both are old designs, and the only reason they are out of the inventory is that they are piston engine aircraft, in a whiz bang, high technology world. They are old designs that, despite their age can still fly and would still get the job done in a manner it needs doing.
Several of the aircraft you listed have been "remanufactured" (meaning stripped down and rebuilt to new) over their years of service, a couple of them twice. They still work, so why not.
High operational costs, and extended maintenance availabilities are very important considerations. Generally accepted periods of maintenance for armored vehicles and aircraft are a four to one ratio, four hours maintenance for each hour of operations. When it exceeds that, there are serious issues, and you run risk of being saddled with motor pool and hanger queens, instead of a highly developed and responsive operational force.
Generally speaking, the more Whiz Bang the platform is, the less you can buy. Some of that is because the Whiz Bang itself means you require less. The price you pay with Whiz Bang though is high down time, and exponentially high maintenance cost, and the increased number of personnel that must be procured, trained, and made available to perform those maintenance tasks.
Close air support does not require sophistication. All you need to do is have a platform that carries a lot, and is reasonably stable. An add on electronic package takes care of getting the junk on target. It need not be fast. It need not be dogfight capable. It must be cheap to procure and operate. Short field landing and take off are a bonus. You better have a lot of them because you are going to lose a lot, which brings up a subject that gives me a great deal of concern. We must never get to a place where our equipment is so sophisticated that we are afraid to use because we may lose. That happened in Iraq in 2003 with an Apache brigade, and I sure hope to hell someone was paying attention.
|
|
|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 15:45:48 GMT
Post by yanmacca on Dec 6, 2016 15:45:48 GMT
I see we replaced our Harriers with US designed F-35. The variant we have bought, has similar vertical take-off capabilities which were used in the Harrier. Sad to see them go but that’s progress, but the Harrier unique at the time and never let us down but the F-35 can outperform it in range, weapons and speed, it also has stealth capabilities too.
|
|
|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 17:23:09 GMT
Post by quincannon on Dec 6, 2016 17:23:09 GMT
There really was not much choice for the RN Ian. They have or will soon have two fairly big, but still small carriers as these things are measured. The Harriers do not have the capability in this age to dominate the air over the sea, that is required. The Harrier is still a fairly good close support aircraft though, but just no longer good enough for both roles, and you need something that is. The F-35 then is the only game in town.
One thing that is not often mentioned in weapons design and procurement, that being the ability of the platform to adapt to changing times, roles, and circumstances. Ships today are generally designed for a lifespan of fifty years. The Spruance Class destroyers were all retired and most of them used as targets long before that fifty years was up. They were big, and quite powerful for their time, but what they lacked was the capacity to be modified to changing times and technologies. Changing times - They were big enough to be modified to accommodate female personnel, but it would have caused their guts, the berthing areas of the ship to be ripped out to do so. Changing technologies - Aegis was such a sensor game changer that it quickly became a must have for high end surface combatants. Again such a modification would cause the entire superstructure above the main deck to be removed and replaced with an Aegis compatible structure. These things together made it much more economical to build new, thus the Burke Class (with a series of improvements, and improvement back fits).
All this is real easy of course. All you have to do is take out your crystal ball and see what the next fifty or sixty years will bring before you set pen to design paper. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats your wallet.
|
|
|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 19:59:06 GMT
Post by quincannon on Dec 6, 2016 19:59:06 GMT
An addendum for Dave:
When you have a chance look up the M48A5 tank.
In an era when we did not have enough of the latest models of the M60 to meet the needs of Europe, and European reinforcement, plus the requirements of Southeast and Northeast Asia, and the additional requirements of the high number of National Guard units, we came up with the novel concept of taking all of the many M48A2's and A3's that we could get our hands on, including I understand some that we had given/sold to the Germans years before, and shipped them down to Anniston for a complete rebuild to include new 105mm main gun (up-gunned from 90mm), new optics and fire control. The finished product, some of my tanker friends told me were far better and more user friendly that the latest model M60 they were meant as substitutes for.
|
|
|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 20:11:16 GMT
Post by yanmacca on Dec 6, 2016 20:11:16 GMT
Yeah we have a couple of flat tops on the drawing board, which will give us one more then Russia, can you believe that they have only one carrier.
Chuck the M48 missed out on a place on my site by a whisker.
|
|