Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #2,161
The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrsYou also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.
The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.
Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '
I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.