Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)

[Dont like rolls]

Eric Mc said:

Escapegoat said:

Eric Mc said:

Top brass who want the flashiest and most expensive. Those who actually have to fly and fight know their value.

The A-10 has been on the cards for retirement for around 20 years but they keep seeing how useful they are. They can't go on forever, of course.

Wasn't the A-10 more-or-less redundant ... and then Gulf War I came along. And all of a sudden its capabilities (i.e. against forces with insignificant air power) were perfect.

That more or less sums up what happened. The A-10 was designed primarilly as a tank killer for operations against Warsaw Pact ground forces. Once the Cold War had ended, it was assumed that such an aircraft would no longer be needed. However, its roots lay in the Vietnam War where old, slow and obsolete piston engined aircraft, such as the Douglas Skyraider and Invader, were found to be very effective against the types of ground targets present in that theatre of war.
It was then found that aircraft with a similar capability still had a role to play in modern warfare.

OV-10 Bronco again !

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/143488960478?ul_noapp=t...

[Narcisus]

Dont like rolls said:

Eric Mc said:

Escapegoat said:

Eric Mc said:

Top brass who want the flashiest and most expensive. Those who actually have to fly and fight know their value.

The A-10 has been on the cards for retirement for around 20 years but they keep seeing how useful they are. They can't go on forever, of course.

Wasn't the A-10 more-or-less redundant ... and then Gulf War I came along. And all of a sudden its capabilities (i.e. against forces with insignificant air power) were perfect.

That more or less sums up what happened. The A-10 was designed primarilly as a tank killer for operations against Warsaw Pact ground forces. Once the Cold War had ended, it was assumed that such an aircraft would no longer be needed. However, its roots lay in the Vietnam War where old, slow and obsolete piston engined aircraft, such as the Douglas Skyraider and Invader, were found to be very effective against the types of ground targets present in that theatre of war.
It was then found that aircraft with a similar capability still had a role to play in modern warfare.

OV-10 Bronco again !

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/143488960478?ul_noapp=t...

Or it's close non flying relative the Pug 405 …. Always good to check before you copy and paste !

Edited by Narcisus on Sunday 5th January 22:28

[Dont like rolls]

Narcisus said:

Or it's close non flying relative the Pug 405 …. Always goo to check before you copy and paste !

Oops

[Narcisus]

Dont like rolls said:

Oops

But please do post the Bronco link .... I’ve always loved the OV10. I remember making an Airfix model in 1979 when I was 11 and spending many hours flying it around the garden :-)

I’ve also enjoy flying flying the Aerosoft Bronco

https://youtu.be/pJHWFPCmZd8

[Dont like rolls]

Narcisus said:

Dont like rolls said:

Oops

But please do post the Bronco link .... I’ve always loved the OV10. I remember making an Airfix model in 1979 when I was 11 and spending many hours flying it around the garden :-)

I’ve also enjoy flying flying the Aerosoft Bronco

https://youtu.be/pJHWFPCmZd8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gP8sqgqEFw

[MartG]

Hawker Siddeley Nimrod Mr.2 flies over HMS Trenchant (S91) and USS Spadefish (SN-668) at the North pole in 1992

[irocfan]

Tango13 said:

There has also been an ongoing and low key st fight between the certain parts of the USAF that want rid of it as it doesn't do Mach 2 and the US Army that have offered to buy and operate the remaining airframes because they're more interested in making history than movies.

Basically the USAF don't want the US Army to operate anything faster than a helicopter.

I have heard about the dick-measuring contest betwixt the brylcreem boys and the grunts. That being said I suspect that there is an argument for saying that a turboprop, heavily armored and armed would do much the same job as an A10...

[Gojira]

CanAm said:

FourWheelDrift said:

The top brass wanted to replace the A-10 with the F-35, showing they have no idea. The only thing they know about would be Lockheed's bribes to buy their aircraft.

Time for Robert Calvert to re-release Captain Lockheed & The Starfighters?

You swine....

I'm catching up after a weekend away, and I've now got a keyboard full of coffee!

Didn't help that I'd been playing that album on the drive home

[andymadmak]

Gojira said:

You swine....

I'm catching up after a weekend away, and I've now got a keyboard full of coffee!

Didn't help that I'd been playing that album on the drive home

Somebody nicked my copy of that album years ago.

Catch a falling starfighter
put it in the pocket of your jeans
you can use it as a cigarette lighter
or as an opener for a can of beans

I saw Hawkwind in 74, at Torquay town hall. I was 12. Stacia didn't strip that night

[ApOrbital]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9p_7yYvoKk

[Europa1]

Eric Mc said:

That more or less sums up what happened. The A-10 was designed primarilly as a tank killer for operations against Warsaw Pact ground forces. Once the Cold War had ended, it was assumed that such an aircraft would no longer be needed. However, its roots lay in the Vietnam War where old, slow and obsolete piston engined aircraft, such as the Douglas Skyraider and Invader, were found to be very effective against the types of ground targets present in that theatre of war.
It was then found that aircraft with a similar capability still had a role to play in modern warfare.

Yep, that accords with my understanding - an abrupt realisation that a supersonic jet with all the gadgets and gizomos was basically useless against (to paraphrase Robin Williams) a guy in lounging pyjamas, stood behind a tree holding an AK-47. Something more pedestrian and less highly strung was far more effective, hence why the WWII tech planes found a new lease of life in Vietnam, and the A10 to me continues that tradition - old, slow tech, but robust, easily maintainable, good 'loiter time', and well armoured/designed to survive (hence the distinctive placing of the engines).

[chris116]

[Dr Jekyll]

Europa1 said:

Yep, that accords with my understanding - an abrupt realisation that a supersonic jet with all the gadgets and gizomos was basically useless against (to paraphrase Robin Williams) a guy in lounging pyjamas, stood behind a tree holding an AK-47. Something more pedestrian and less highly strung was far more effective, hence why the WWII tech planes found a new lease of life in Vietnam, and the A10 to me continues that tradition - old, slow tech, but robust, easily maintainable, good 'loiter time', and well armoured/designed to survive (hence the distinctive placing of the engines).

The supersonic jet with the gizmos was far from useless against pyjama man, just a bit less useful than the much cheaper A10. On the other hand the supersonic jet was a bit more useful than the A10 for certain other targets, and very useful for jobs the A10 couldn't do at all. Nobody but the USAF has bought the A10 because few air forces can afford to have one combat aircraft dedicated to attacking only certain types of target and only then when total air superiority has been achieved. So you can understand the argument that on balance a few F16s might be better value overall.

The A10 is a bit like the B52, very cost effective against certain types of target once air superiority has been achieved, but it has it's limits.

Talking of WWII tech having a new lease of life. Turboprop P51 Mustangs were seriously suggested in the late 60s. The big problem was that they would be too vulnerable to ground fire.

[ApOrbital]

MartG said:

Hawker Siddeley Nimrod Mr.2 flies over HMS Trenchant (S91) and USS Spadefish (SN-668) at the North pole in 1992

I do like that one mart

[Tango13]

irocfan said:

Tango13 said:

There has also been an ongoing and low key st fight between the certain parts of the USAF that want rid of it as it doesn't do Mach 2 and the US Army that have offered to buy and operate the remaining airframes because they're more interested in making history than movies.

Basically the USAF don't want the US Army to operate anything faster than a helicopter.

I have heard about the dick-measuring contest betwixt the brylcreem boys and the grunts. That being said I suspect that there is an argument for saying that a turboprop, heavily armored and armed would do much the same job as an A10...

Some of the earlier ideas about what was needed for the Close Air Support mission involved using turboprops, a sort of Super Skyraider.

They were rejected due to the large amounts of horsepower required meaning either two engines geared to a large single prop, considered too risky from an engineering, battle damage and handling point of view or two engines and individual propellers which would've meant putting the engines a large distance off the airframes centreline causing asymmetric thrust issues if one engine was lost.

There was iirc a Pentagon study as to why the US Military needed so many different CAS platforms and the conclusion was that whilst there was indeed overlap between the USMC Harrier, the USAF A-10 and the various rotary wing platforms it wasn't so significant as to justify scrapping any one of them.

[Ayahuasca]

Dr Jekyll said:

The A10 is a bit like the B52, very cost effective against certain types of target once air superiority has been achieved, but it has it's limits.

A modern version of the Stuka.

[Dont like rolls]

Ayahuasca said:

A modern version of the Stuka.

The Stuka was very successful on the Eastern Front mid/late in the War in the Direct Ground Attack role, the Germans did not have Air Superiority in that airspace but local/short term defence could be mounted to protect GA aircraft..

https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-stra...

Edited by Dont like rolls on Monday 6th January 23:21

[Eric Mc]

Aircraft such as the Stuka and A-10 could and can work very well, provided the enemy does not have the capability to counteract such aircraft.

In the scenarios that have played out since the demise of the Soviet Union, the A-10 has been very effective. On the other hand, I would not have fancied my chances as an A-10 pilot if I'd had to go to war against the Soviet Union and its allies.

[JuniorD]

Some strange old birds towards the middle of this article

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tab...

[Eric Mc]

That is one aircraft I have never seen before. To be honest, you can see why Curtiss went out of business not long after.