Posted on 01/17/2015 5:58:44 AM PST by Zhang Fei
(IraqiNews.com) On Thursday, a local source in Nineveh province said, that the ‘Wild Boar’ aircraft which belongs to the U.S. Air Force has carried out four air strikes that killed and wounded dozens of ISIS elements, adding that the aircraft sparked panic in the ranks of ISIS.
The source said in an interview for IraqiNews.com, “The U.S. aircraft A-10 Warthog (Wild Boar) carried out, at dawn today, four air strikes on gatherings of ISIS elements in the village of Sultan Abdullah in Makhmour district, southeast Mosul,” adding that, “The raids resulted in the death and injury of dozens of ISIS elements.”
It was more than a gun in the aircraft issue. I would copy the information in the book, but it is lengthy. The brass wanted huge, crazy fast, heavy, expensive, dual purpose aircraft. Boyd knew from experience that most dual purpose equipment proved to be inadequate in either intended role. Dedicated aircraft, especially for CAS was the way to go.
Notes from Coram’s book: He noted that the A-10 was modeled in part after the A-1 Sandys.
The air force tried to kill the A-10 in development. The air force did not want the CAS mission.
The designer, Sprey, wanted a smaller, more maneuverable single engine plane (Hard to imagine a more maneuverable A-10).
From the text:
“Rather than having flammable and vulnerable hydraulic controls, the A-X (A-10) would have mechanical cables and push rods- redundant dual cables- to control the flight surfaces. Sprey insisted the A-X must be able to maintain flight even with half the control surfaces shot away. As for armament, the A-X was built around a radical new cannon that fired banana sized depleted uranium bullets. (Me: It wasn’t a gun on a plane they objected to, it was a plane built around a gun) To protect the pilot, the cockpit was surrounded by a titanium tub.
“The Air Force loathed everything about the A-X....Jokes were made that it was so slow it suffered bird strikes from the rear and that instead of carrying a clock it had a calender. The aircraft was so ugly it was called the “Warthog.” Many in the Air Force said no plane could perform and survive in combat as this airplane was supposed to perform.”
Boyd piggy backed this through the development process with another plane the air force wanted and has since discontinued. They hated A-10 then, they hated how it was forced on them by a man that did not share their vision or play by their games, and the upper brass, with their long memories, still hate it now. That is what this is about. Higher up playing political games rather than giving troops what they really need. I just wish the Marine Corps would wake up and take over this plane.
Can you say. . .F-111?
Jokes were a part of Hog life. We were never offended and even passed them along as well. We knew what we could do.
We have a triple redundant flight control system in the A-10. . .primary hydraulics, secondary and then manual reversion (mechanical cables and push rods). And the mechanical cables and push rods were not redundant or ‘dual,’ it was a last ditch way to fly the jet back to safe territory and then bail, though some recovered in Gulf Wars.
Mechanical cables and push rods are hard to use as you are fighting the airstream and HEAVY control surfaces.
SAC guys controlled the early USAF until the fighter Mafia rolled in around post-vietnam. While many ‘hated’ the jets they always respected what it could do. When you fight as hard as you can to graduate pilot training and be fighter-rated, then instead of a sexy F-16 (at the time) you get a Hog. . .some hated that. . .until they got to the jet. Once there they became the most loyal Hog Drivers ever.
Decades later, especially after Gulf War I, the ‘generals’ understood the jet and respected it and its mission (we have USAF troops on the ground as well). The hard-core A-10 haters are simply nowhere to be seen now. What is happening now is budgets and single-mission vs multi-mission argument.
Multi-mission is winning the accounting argument and sngle-mission is winning real-world battles. Guess who controls the budgets?
Depending upon the desert. Many are not at all flat.
Nothing to do with time to track/adjust. . .it comes off the rails already tracking.
If you have it on target, and I don't know the particulars of a MANPAD control system but I'd bet it's pretty simple. The problem is the combination of aperture and reaction time. You don't want it hitting a truck on the ground, so it does have an aperture. Unless the target is within the aperture, it won't lock. If because it is low and overhead, the plane comes and is gone before the device can lock, it will miss. If it is not overhead, there could be multiple signatures on the ground within the aperture; the operator would have to wait until the target was high enough to avoid the likelihood of hitting a friendly. That doesn't allow much time for the shot at a very high angular rate that increases the chances of failing to maintain the target within the aperture long enough for it to lock given the sampling rate and processing time. I know it's a pretty simple algorithm, but it still takes time and when the plane comes by at such a rate, that time can matter.
I haven't heard of the A-10 exhibiting such vulnerability as seems more common with helicopters.
Yes, but if you read the text to which I refer, the USAF did not even want the F16 either; they did not have any affinity for lightweight fighters. The 16 and the A-10 were something that Boyd ramrodded through, thank goodness.
I understand the need for dual purpose, but you cannot sell short the CAS mission. And there isn’t much air to air in the foreseeable future. You will probably say China and Russia, but those scenarios, while possible, are unlikely. The need for CAS is ever present and not to be left to distant bombers or drones.
Ugly is as ugly does. The Warthog is UGLYYY, and does a magnificent job!
Thanks for your service. One of my wife’s cousins was a Blackbird driver. I guess that’s the other extreme on the scale!
I'd rather have single-mission; it only makes sense to have your tools specialized to the task at hand. (I've actually had some arguments about this mindset WRT my day job programming; seems like my fellow programmers are mostly married to the idea of "general purpose" text-files/file-systems rather than special-purpose DB/IDEs.)
You could get a LOT done with F-22s providing air-superiority, A-10s doing CAS, and Infantry w/ Arty support.
But it's not like my opinion matters, in either case.
How ironic! Is it because of the deaths they have suffered or the indignity of being defeated by the ‘wild boar?” Maybe the US military should order Miss Piggy masks and wigs and put them on their pilots who are flying the Wild Boar.
If someone were to tell me there was a better ground support aircraft in the works...OK; but from what I understand there is nothing to replace the A-10.
I guess they think helicopters can do the job??
The only thing exiting its barrels were puffs of smoke. The unit they were “attacking” were directly below them, offset just enough so they knew they were the target.
That's a given if you're fighting Iraq or Yugoslavia. Against a near-peer adversary, ground troops might have to defend or advance under conditions of air superiority (and perhaps local instances of air inferiority) rather than air supremacy (never mind air dominance). That's when an aircraft that can't defend against enemy fighters is either used, and shot down in large numbers, or out of the fight until air superiority can be established. While it would be nice to have a specialized CAS plane like the A-10 along with multi-mission fighter planes like the F-18 or the F-35, if push comes to shove, budget-wise, it's understandable that the Air Force would want the plane that can do both missions. The army has armor, IFV's, tube artillery, MLRS and helos to provide fire support. Only the Air Force can take on enemy fighters in hostile airspace.
BTW, unless I'm mistaken, a MANPAD is a shoulder-fired weapon. No rails, a tube.
“They get rid of the ‘big pig’, they’ll have to go back to napalm, which ain’t a bad idea either...”
You still have to hit the right spot with napalm. The problem with other aircraft is that they are moving much faster than the warthog and can’t get as good a look at the target. A much higher chance of hitting your own troops than with the A10.
Active Duty ping.
This from ye-uy....”Having seen an A-10 in action during a training exercise, I can assure everyone here that it is a great combination of scary and deadly.” You are welcome, to have a “great” down range, ground experience, anytime. Perhaps, soon- would be good.
Having reviewed your posts to other people, you seem to be consistently abrasive to the point of being offensive, and for no apparently purpose other than to be insulting.
Perhaps a different forum might be more suitable to your behavior, instead of spewing near-random hate at people here.
Seriously, why bother?
I love DCS A10 but my baby is the Mig21 bis. I have the Mig15 on preorder.
Perhaps, your argument is with folks, who will assail keen supporters of islam- with the truth, of your demonic allah and phony liar, mohamet. Where are you from, ye-uy? I know why you bother. Stay close.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.