![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... (snippum) " wrote in message link.net... (snip) Even the USAF A-10 pilots say that the USAF is ignoring the A-10 and hoping it'll go away. Of course. It's the end of a way of life. Tell the USAF that. I've been reading a few new articles and the USAF claims that the A-10 will be in their inventory until 2028. They are even (finally) updating it. The A-10 owes much of it's life to the Skyraider. Ever been "Had by a Spad?" When we got involved in Vietnam, the USAF (once again) found itself without a suitable attack aircraft - one that could carry gobs of ordinance, was slow and had a long loiter time... and once again the USAF had to take a USN aircraft, the A-1 Skyraider, to fufill a role that they neglected... You really need to get a new schtic. This one is stail and quite uniformed. The AF didn't get it from the Navy, they got it from the boneyard where the Navy put them in the first place. Then again, quite a few AC were retired to the Boneyard only to find themselves back on duty. Like the C-124 Globemaster. (snip) And so can the F-16 in ground loadout. If the USAF lets them. The USAF has a tendency to keep their sexy jets away from CAS because it doesn't want to get their pretty jets hurt. Again, ask the Elite Guard that was outside Bagdad. Oh, that's right. They are all dead from things falling on their heads and going boom. From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two attack runs in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the F-16. Then you need to see better. Both can do more than 2, I assure you. The difference is, the F-16 has a higher survivalbility rate due to it being able to slow down to 200 kts and then speed up to Mach if need be to exit. The 10 doesn't have to slow down. It's already slow. (snip) What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) but the Buffs were nailing the Republican Guard Armor with Carpet Bombing long before you characters set foot in even Saudiland. Everything else, the F-16 and the F-18 can do with a normal load for ground support. F-16s pilots do not practice CAS enough. I suggest you voice you concerns to the Head of the Air Force. He could use a nice bit of humor. And since when does anyone in the Military get enough Battle Practice anyway? I suggest you learn to read roadmaps. And the F-16 can completely fill the role The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody was daft enough to buy it... It can't fly slow enough and it can't direct gunfire accurately enough. The numbers of "blue on blue" incidents with F-16s should be enough to tell anyone that. You seem to forget the number of A-10s as well. The 16 and the 18 can slow down to 200 kts like the A-10 can and still deliver the load. The A-10 can go down to about 110 knots. It's got some big ass boards on its wings so that it can slow down effectively - the F-16 doesn't have that. The A-10 is also more maneveurable than a F-16 at these speeds. At 110 kts, you can knock it down with a handgun. At 200 KTs it's a bit harder to hit it and no pilot in their right mind slows down much below that. Those that are not in their right mind and slow it down to stall speed are dead. And unlike the F-16, the A-10 is a relatively "quiet" aircraft and is more adept at sneaking up to mobile ground targets than a F-16 is (I know this cause one snuck up on me at one time...). Yup. Except when the 16 closes, it's usually running at a speed where the sound is reaching the ground just behind the AC passing. The Doppler affect makes it appear to be dead quiet. If you heard it, you weren't the target. the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did). Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation? Add Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Just Cause. All of which have proven (at least to the US Army, US Navy (hence A-12) and USMC that the A-10 is an excellent aircraft with a continuing mission in Close Air Support. You are using ground pounder PR. It's not going to save the A-10. 2028? Is that a REg or your hat size? (snip) Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU is about 30 seconds. The A-10 isn't a fighter, right? Do we expect that we will be unable to provide CAP and air superiority anytime soon? And if we go against a Military with a decent AF, what then? What are those F-22s and F-15s for? Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during Vietnam but didn't. Do we just leave you ground pounders to fend for yourselves until AS can be established? F-22s and F-15s can't fly escort for A-10s? Why would they need to. The 16 doesn't need the cover nearly as much. The A-7s often flew with no Topcap. And the Mig Pilots learned to leave the Sluf alone due to a high deathrate of their own. Do we leave the A-10 home until then? What happens if there is no forward Air Fields? Odd thing about the A-10... it can fly off relatively unimproved airfields... if we did go up against some country with a **** Hot Air Force, it'll be the F-22s, F-16s, and F-15s that'll be grounded because their air bases and runways have been shot up. Rave on. Name one place on the earth that the F-15 with Conformal Packs, the F-16 with external tanks and the Tankers can't get to. There isn't one place on earth. The A-10, OTOH, will be flying from makeshift runways... Without the F-15s, 16s and such, the A-10 will be parked on a very comfortable Airfield well behind the lines. Completely out of range where the Junk 1950s Fighters from a 3rd rate AF can't get to them and blow them all to hell and gone. The Forward AFs become the Carriers (F-18) and the AF F-16s with external tanks. The A-10 sits out of range. North Korea is a prime example. See above. See above. There were USAF A-10s at Bagram Air Field in the Sandbox, but there sure as hell weren't any USAF F-16s there... Newsflash, there also was no opposing Air Force either. It had already been plowed away to nothing or thought better of taking off. Attack that A-10 and you get a frontline Fighter on your way in. You won't make it. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Daryl Hunt wrote:
(snipage occurs, fore and aft) Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during Vietnam but didn't. really? that appears to be news to most folks: Three early F-14As were delivered in the autumn of 1972 to VX-4 at NAS Point Mugu, California for operational evaluation. The replacement squadron VF-124 at NAS Miramar received its first Tomcats in June of 1972. The job of VF-124 was to train Tomcat crews for duty with operational carrier-based squadrons. The first two operational Tomcat squadrons were VF-1 Wolfpack and VF-2 Bounty Hunters, both based at NAS Miramar. These units deployed aboard the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in mid-1974. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...r_us/f014.html redc1c4, do you enjoy getting caught lying, or are you just stupid? -- A Troop - 1st Squadron 404th Lemming Armored Cavalry "Velox et Capillatus!" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
DM howler (was A-4 / A-7
From: redc1c4 Date: 10/12/2003 10:38 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: Daryl Hunt wrote: (snipage occurs, fore and aft) Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during Vietnam but didn't. really? that appears to be news to most folks: You didn't know we also had AH-64s and M-1 tanks in Viet Nam? Egad, friend, have you not read war novels and watched movies? I have seen such memorable lines as "didn't you fly Apaches in Viet Nam" and stuff like that there. Then again FOX's War Stories with Oliver North has had such memorable statements as "most never came back" when referring to the 8th AF bombing missions. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Daryl Hunt says...
"Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two attack runs in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the F-16. Then you need to see better. You need to read better. "In the same time..." means in the same amount of time, an A-10 can do two attack runs whereas the F-16 will only do one. What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) Tell the USAF that: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the armored vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 Furthermore, a captured Iraqi officer reported that the "single most recognizable and feared aircraft at low level was the A-10. Although the actual bomb run was terrifying, the aircraft's loitering around the target area caused as much, if not more, anxiety since the Iraqi soldiers were unsure of the chosen target."34 Another source reported that A-10s killed over 50 percent of all enemy tanks, more than 50 percent of all field artillery pieces, and 31 percent of all armored personnel carriers. Interestingly enough, they also accounted for more air-to-air combat kills than the multirole F-16 Fighting Falcon.35 Clearly, the A-10s were decisive combat multipliers on the battlefield and were instrumental in minimizing US ground losses in the ground campaign that liberated Kuwait. And, once again, the Air Force used B-52s in the BAI role to bomb Republican Guard positions as well as troop or equipment concentrations.36" 32. "`The Air Campaign' Videotape Script," in Air Command and Staff College Seminar/Lesson Book, vol. 9 (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University, 1993), 37-51. 33. Smallwood, 96. 34. Ibid., 203. 35. "Letters," Air Force Magazine, September 1991, 9-10. 36. Hallion, 221. It's also in "White Paper - Air Force Performance in Desert Storm, Department of the Air Force, April 1991." Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that the Russians have a three stage SAM... -Tom "For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks, "What I Live for" UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two attack runs in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the F-16. Then you need to see better. You need to read better. "In the same time..." means in the same amount of time, an A-10 can do two attack runs whereas the F-16 will only do one. And the A-10 Pilot is more than twice as vulnerable to everything. You sure put a low price on a Pilots Life. What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) Tell the USAF that: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html mercy snip You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". If the A-10 had done the bulk of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim. Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. And ANY type of A or F could do this. Bring back the OV-10 or the armed version of the O-2 and they could do it as well. The A-10 was primarily used AFTER the Fighters and Bombers killed the Armor and made everyone put their heads down. End of discussion, Troll Boy. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Daryl Hunt says...
"Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... (sbip) What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) Tell the USAF that: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html mercy snip You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". Huh? "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 " If the A-10 had done the bulk of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim. "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces." Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. The article says "ARMORED" vehicles. Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs. Your reading skills are pitiful. -Tom "For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks, "What I Live for" UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... (sbip) What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) Tell the USAF that: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html mercy snip You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". Huh? "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 " If the A-10 had done the bulk of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim. "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces." Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. The article says "ARMORED" vehicles. Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs. Your reading skills are pitiful. Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived. The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This was NOT an official Air Force Statement. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote: "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... (sbip) What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) Tell the USAF that: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html mercy snip You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". Huh? "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 " If the A-10 had done the bulk of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim. "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces." Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. The article says "ARMORED" vehicles. Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs. Your reading skills are pitiful. Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived. The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This was NOT an official Air Force Statement. So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with. You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "dvick" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" wrote: "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... In article , Daryl Hunt says... (sbip) What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers. Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.") I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) Tell the USAF that: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html mercy snip You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". Huh? "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 " If the A-10 had done the bulk of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim. "Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets, A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED (----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces." Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. The article says "ARMORED" vehicles. Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs. Your reading skills are pitiful. Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived. The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This was NOT an official Air Force Statement. So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with. You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent. I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes on. Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no longer necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens. But don't let that bit of fact get in your way. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |