Exactly how "dead" IS the A-10?

Just saw that on the big screen for the 40th anniversary release. Ni!

"I'm feelin' better!"

Hell, in (I THINK) 1968, they launched and recovered a C130 off the Forrestal quite a few times. I wonder if a C17 could manage a drop in on the new carriers? And honestly, I doubt the A10 would even NEED a cat launch. Might need a tailhook though. If there's any A10 jocks here, sound off. What's the tightest takeoff and landing you've done? (Don't incriminate yourselves...but "I know a guy who...".) Hell, you could probably adapt a landing gear off a mothballed navy fighter without a huge expense.

As far as ability goes, TIME ON TARGET means EVERYTHING. If you're flying 800mph, and you're in visual range of the target, you MIGHT have 2-3 seconds to both identify AND fire on a target. We found out during Desert Shield/Storm that the Go fast drivers would actually fire on the DECOYS more than the REAL targets. You don't have time to notice those funky shadows or the two electric heaters stuck in a plywood frame

Actually, the Marine's were offered the bird and refused them. Course, that was many years ago but they were brought in and offered back when they were still purchasing them. My father was in the ANG back when the bird was still in acquisition and his unit was the first guard unit to receive them. I was in college ROTC at the time and I remember there was talk of the Corps buying them also. Now, after my own years in service as a weapons controller and then later a maintenance officer, it is time for the bird to stand down. There has been a lot of talk about the fighter community leadership wanting to get rid of the A-10, but I just don't see that. The fighter mafia of the time were even then indifferent to the bird but did not think it survivable. They were wrong as long as we maintain air superiority over the battlefield. Now, it's become a numbers game with increasingly smaller budgets. The supply/maintenance chain is very thin for the craft. I remember culling parts from the boneyard many years ago to try and keep the fleet flying and that well is running dry. And truth be told, she's not so survivable in the current operations scenarios. I'm in acquisitions now after and working with the propulsion guys on the F-35 program and getting exposed to the bird I think it's going to be an effective weapon system even if the program is rife with overruns and mismanagement. I see the costs more a result of too many hands in that pie though with every congressman out there trying to garner funds and manufacturing for their districts. It's strange how they love to chat about spreading the benefits of manufacturing around the states but then complain about cost overruns and delays. I do wish they had all gone with the larger wing the Navy is purchasing with the C model with elimination of the wing fold mechanism though. The top end speed isn't sacrificed too much for the increased payload it enables. And operationally I wonder if the validity of the VTOL capability of the B-model will be borne out. It's a balancing act. While the A-10 can loiter longer she takes more time to get on target and is more vulnerable and while that big gun is effective and popular, the F-16 and F-15E have been as effective in real use. JMHO, W

Capt Walter Martens - Captain; "Maintaining air superiority" over an opposition that doesn't have any aircraft isn't all that difficult.

Admittedly the A-10 isn't an exceptionally good "first strike" aircraft - but that's NOT what it was designed for and the need for a "first strike" aircraft declines as the opposition's air power and anti-air capability declines. (On top of that, a "first strike" aircraft isn't all that useful against a person packing a MPADS.)

The solution to "aging airframes" is NOT patching and splicing, it is build new ones. What the heck ALL of the R&D, engineering, and manufacturing technical work has already been done and I could probably have you a factory to manufacture A-10s on a 24/365 basis up and running within 24 months (at the outside).

Appreciate your enthusiasm for the jet Col Ted, but it'd take a lot more than that. Not just for the physical aspects of reconstructing the tooling/molds etc. to build more craft but the red tape involved. There currently is no quick path through acquisition that could circumvent the bidding process. Not to mention the many improvements that the aircraft would be addled with and congressmen wanting a piece of that acquisition cash-cow in their respective states. That would all take years and funds that don't exist. And, in the end you have an aircraft that still is more vulnerable to the current threat than is acceptable compared to other weapons systems. So, not enough money and a limited capability "niche" aircraft.

Yet, congressmen will continue to step in and rescue the bird, exposing those aircrews to greater risk unnecessarily while at the same time cutting defense budgets which pulls money from current operations and acquisitions to support this bird. Give the military the budgets they really need to effectively take on this mission,(including funding for specialized war machines instead of limited budgets necessitating catch-all weapons systems) supported by directives that truly allow engagement methods and tactics that will produce results, and we could secure the battlefield.

But I don't see that happening. Nobody on capital hill has the backbone nor stomach to truthfully destroy this enemy, IMHO, as evidenced by their unwillingness to even properly identify them.

COL Ted Mc, only for liberals.

Capt Seid Waddell - Captain; You see - name changing" DOES "change reality".

You do realize that the US government executed (as war criminals) people who used "waterboarding" as a method of "enhanced interrogation" don't you? (Admittedly the people executed weren't "White" "Christians".)

COL Ted Mc, got a link to that?

Capt Seid Waddell - Captain; My apologies, I'm still caffeine deficient.

The US didn't EXECUTE anyone for "waterboarding". However it did sentence a Japanese officer (Yukio Asano) to 15 years imprisonment for it, and on January 21, 1968 a US Soldier was convicted of waterboarding a North Vietnamese prisoner.

Prior to that (in the Spanish American War) Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended and fined by court-martial for waterboarding a prisoner - the JA comment was that the actions were a “resort to torture with a view to extort a confession.”.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1947waterboardwarcrime