And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is a crying shame that the Pentagon could not have developed an A-10 variant that could have taken off and landed on aircraft carriers so that the USMC could have had that incredible Close Air Support (CAS) airplane during some of the more recent combat that they have faced.
I would not be surprised it's not possible. They have landed and had both C-130 and the U-2 land and take off with out the use of the catapult during testing. Jimmy Doolittle and his group did it on much shorter carriers in B-25 bombers.
I suspect that they couldn't fit enough of them on the little support carriers that the Corp uses. Saying that they couldn't do it sounds more like politics than engineering. Wings need to fold to get enough on the ship, though.
You ask just about any infantryman who has seen the elephant ", when the kimchee gets deep the plane they most want to see on approach is the Republic Fairchild A10 Thunderbolt II.
The Air Force was trying to get rid of them when they first came out. Tank-Busters figured out right away you had to be part of the Bomber or Fighter Mafias to get promoted.
I wish someone would explain why the B-52, a 70-year old warbird, is still a capable first-line asset, while the A-10 is completely unsatisfactory and useless.
I don't know where "unsatisfactory and useless" came into the converstion about the A-10 "Wart Hog."
Getting on with the B-52, it was made back when workers cared about what they produced, and the federal government did not award contracts to the lowest bidder. They tended to hire reliable and honest companies. Today's world defense products are produced, cheaply and quickly...with little or no regard to longevity or durability.
wrt Anon, Jan 21, 2024: "unsatisfactory and useless" . . . I was attempting to be sarcastic about USAF wanting to discard the A-10. I'm a big fan of the Warthog.
It is a crying shame that the Pentagon could not have developed an A-10 variant that could have taken off and landed on aircraft carriers so that the USMC could have had that incredible Close Air Support (CAS) airplane during some of the more recent combat that they have faced.
ReplyDeleteI would not be surprised it's not possible. They have landed and had both C-130 and the U-2 land and take off with out the use of the catapult during testing. Jimmy Doolittle and his group did it on much shorter carriers in B-25 bombers.
DeleteSmarter aeronautical engineers that I'll ever be indicated that it is not possible.
DeleteI suspect that they couldn't fit enough of them on the little support carriers that the Corp uses. Saying that they couldn't do it sounds more like politics than engineering. Wings need to fold to get enough on the ship, though.
Deletethey are the most cool aircraft out there.
ReplyDeletethe saying is that if you can hear one then you were not the target.
i love the IR patch on the back of the dudes helmet.
ReplyDeleteYou ask just about any infantryman who has seen the elephant ", when the kimchee gets deep the plane they most want to see on approach is the Republic Fairchild A10 Thunderbolt II.
ReplyDeleteDamn straight!
DeleteAir Force trying to get rid of em. Army or marines should take over
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote in the first post, the plane cannot take off or land on an aircraft carrier so the USMC cannot employ this most awesome CAS plane.
DeleteThe Air Force was trying to get rid of them when they first came out. Tank-Busters figured out right away you had to be part of the Bomber or Fighter Mafias to get promoted.
DeleteI wish someone would explain why the B-52, a 70-year old warbird, is still a capable first-line asset, while the A-10 is completely unsatisfactory and useless.
ReplyDeleteI don't know where "unsatisfactory and useless" came into the converstion about the A-10 "Wart Hog."
DeleteGetting on with the B-52, it was made back when workers cared about what they produced, and the federal government did not award contracts to the lowest bidder. They tended to hire reliable and honest companies. Today's world defense products are produced, cheaply and quickly...with little or no regard to longevity or durability.
Was a crew chief on those for damn near 18 years…was a maintenance guy’s dream of a jet.
ReplyDeleteLoaded munitions on A-10s at RAF Bentwaters 78 -80
ReplyDeleteBRRRT
ReplyDeletewrt Anon, Jan 21, 2024: "unsatisfactory and useless" . . . I was attempting to be sarcastic about USAF wanting to discard the A-10. I'm a big fan of the Warthog.
ReplyDeleteWe gotta keep the B-52's in case we ever have to bomb the crap out of German ball bearing factories again.
Delete