F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[No Name]

Copied from Lockheed site...s'more cheerleadin', interesting tho'
sojourner

"The maturity of this highly integrated aircraft for its second flight is
dazzling - when it's time to fly it is always ready and takes minimal time
to get out of the chocks," said Jon Beesley, F-35 Chief Test Pilot. "The
flight underscores that the Lightning II flies just as our engineers
predicted. This was the first time that we have retracted the landing gear
and the aircraft handling qualities were outstanding. I continue to be
impressed by this marvelous airplane's performance and handling
characteristics."

Approximately 10 minutes into the flight, Beesley retracted the landing gear
and climbed from 15,000 to 20,000 feet to evaluate handling qualities and
engine operation in the cruise mode at Mach 0.6 (~ 450 m.p.h.) and Mach 0.7
(~ 530 m.p.h.). The handling tests included rolls, turns, angle-of-attack
changes and engine throttle changes. The flight lasted 62 minutes and was
executed exactly as planned. It followed the aircraft's successful first
flight on Dec. 15, when the F-35 demonstrated unprecedented engine
performance and handling qualities. The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role,
5TH Generation stealth fighter designed to replace a wide range of existing
aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United
Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.

Lockheed Martin is developing the Lightning II with its principal industrial
partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable
F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE
Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

"With this successful flight and its broad array of test points, F-35 flight
test has really begun," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice
president and F-35 program general manager. "The ease of starting and flying
this aircraft is a reflection of the quality of the team who designed and
built it."

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation stealth fighter
designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B
Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and
Sea Harriers.

[Mitchell Holman]

> wrote in :

>
> Copied from Lockheed site...s'more cheerleadin', interesting tho'
> sojourner
>
>
> The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation stealth fighter
> designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B
> Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s
> and Sea Harriers.


Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
used against?

[Mitchell Holman]

> wrote in :

>
> Copied from Lockheed site...s'more cheerleadin', interesting tho'
> sojourner
>
>
> The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation stealth fighter
> designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B
> Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s
> and Sea Harriers.


Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
used against?

[Alan Erskine]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in :
>
> >
> > Copied from Lockheed site...s'more cheerleadin', interesting tho'
> > sojourner
> >
> >
> > The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation stealth fighter
> > designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B
> > Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s
> > and Sea Harriers.
>
>
> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
> used against?

Anyone who is currently faced with AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18
Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.

Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the wrong
aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too small etc.
Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat A-10.

--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in :
>
> >
> > Copied from Lockheed site...s'more cheerleadin', interesting tho'
> > sojourner
> >
> >
> > The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5TH Generation stealth fighter
> > designed to replace a wide range of existing aircraft, including AV-8B
> > Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s
> > and Sea Harriers.
>
>
> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
> used against?

Anyone who is currently faced with AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18
Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.

Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the wrong
aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too small etc.
Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat A-10.

--
Alan Erskine

[miket6065]

I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for
ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary
cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID
several targets and program a single SDB against each.

[miket6065]

I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for
ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary
cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID
several targets and program a single SDB against each.

[Alan Erskine]

"miket6065" > wrote in message
. net...
> I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for
> ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary
> cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID
> several targets and program a single SDB against each.

Not at the speed it will be travelling at. It will cover the battlefield in
half the time of the A-10; that's a major problem.

And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of
damage an A-10 can survive.

--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"miket6065" > wrote in message
. net...
> I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for
> ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary
> cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID
> several targets and program a single SDB against each.

Not at the speed it will be travelling at. It will cover the battlefield in
half the time of the A-10; that's a major problem.

And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of
damage an A-10 can survive.

--
Alan Erskine

[Korben Dallas[_1_]]

Alan Erskine wrote:
> ...
> And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the
amount of
> damage an A-10 can survive.
> ...

Something that can be said about Su-25. Except that in case of Su-25
there's more combat-based evidence that supports that statement.

[Korben Dallas[_1_]]

Alan Erskine wrote:
> ...
> And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the
amount of
> damage an A-10 can survive.
> ...

Something that can be said about Su-25. Except that in case of Su-25
there's more combat-based evidence that supports that statement.

[Roger Smith]

In article >, Alan Erskine
> writes
>"miket6065" > wrote in message
. net...
>> I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for
>> ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary
>> cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID
>> several targets and program a single SDB against each.
>
>Not at the speed it will be travelling at. It will cover the battlefield in
>half the time of the A-10; that's a major problem.
>
The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur
within close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of
speed comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out.

Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle
field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to
transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of
being slow enough to aim at the targets manually.

>And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of
>damage an A-10 can survive.
>

I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest.

How many battles have A10's been in?

How many A10's have been sold outside the US?

(1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above
and in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
combat plane.
--
How does a rocket/jet engine work?
"It's not that hard.
Stuff goes in, stuff happens, stuff goes out faster than it came in."
- Ian Stirling
aRJay

[Roger Smith]

In article >, Alan Erskine
> writes
>"miket6065" > wrote in message
. net...
>> I think that they are planning on using the new small diameter bombs for
>> ground support. Certainly no plane can carry that massive GAU8 rotary
>> cannon. But with the radar and computers of the JSF it can easily ID
>> several targets and program a single SDB against each.
>
>Not at the speed it will be travelling at. It will cover the battlefield in
>half the time of the A-10; that's a major problem.
>
The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur
within close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of
speed comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out.

Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle
field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to
transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of
being slow enough to aim at the targets manually.

>And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount of
>damage an A-10 can survive.
>

I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest.

How many battles have A10's been in?

How many A10's have been sold outside the US?

(1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above
and in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
combat plane.
--
How does a rocket/jet engine work?
"It's not that hard.
Stuff goes in, stuff happens, stuff goes out faster than it came in."
- Ian Stirling
aRJay

[Bruce R]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
> used against?
>
>

I agree, and you won't see it being used as a "bomb truck" either.


Bruce R

[Bruce R]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
> used against?
>
>

I agree, and you won't see it being used as a "bomb truck" either.


Bruce R

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

"Bruce R" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
>> used against?
>>
>>
>
> I agree, and you won't see it being used as a "bomb truck" either.
>
>
> Bruce R
>
>
>

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

"Bruce R" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
>> used against?
>>
>>
>
> I agree, and you won't see it being used as a "bomb truck" either.
>
>
> Bruce R
>
>
>

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

"Bruce R" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
>> used against?
>>
>>
>
> I agree, and you won't see it being used as a "bomb truck" either.
>
>
> Bruce R
>
>
>

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

"Bruce R" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
>> used against?
>>
>>
>
> I agree, and you won't see it being used as a "bomb truck" either.
>
>
> Bruce R
>
>
>

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

>

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

>

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

The A-10 is a tough one, no doubt about it!
It can fly without an engine and
without one of its tailplanes and rudders . . .
(and with a lot of holes in it)

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

"Roger Smith" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur within
> close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of speed
> comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out.

No, it was designed for the mid-european front taking out war-pac
tankformations . . .

> Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle
> field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to
> transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of
> being slow enough to aim at the targets manually.

Stil an excellent anti-terrorist weapon as well as many other things . .

>>And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount
>>of
>>damage an A-10 can survive.
>>
> I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest.

Don't doubt it!

> How many battles have A10's been in?

Bosnia, Kosovo, GW1, Afghanistan, GW2, probably more . . .

> How many A10's have been sold outside the US?

None - the US wisely kept them all for them selves

> (1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
> have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above and
> in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
> debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
> targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
> combat plane.

Bull**** all of it!

[Blume, Alf[_1_]]

"Roger Smith" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur within
> close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of speed
> comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out.

No, it was designed for the mid-european front taking out war-pac
tankformations . . .

> Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle
> field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to
> transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of
> being slow enough to aim at the targets manually.

Stil an excellent anti-terrorist weapon as well as many other things . .

>>And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount
>>of
>>damage an A-10 can survive.
>>
> I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest.

Don't doubt it!

> How many battles have A10's been in?

Bosnia, Kosovo, GW1, Afghanistan, GW2, probably more . . .

> How many A10's have been sold outside the US?

None - the US wisely kept them all for them selves

> (1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
> have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above and
> in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
> debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
> targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
> combat plane.

Bull**** all of it!

[Alan Erskine]

"Roger Smith" > wrote in message
...

> (1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
> have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above
> and in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
> debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
> targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
> combat plane.

Don't worry about the engines; their position protects them (take a look at
a side-on image) very well. The only real problem with the A-10 is the
single-seat design; very high workload as it's involved in the most intense
operations.


--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"Roger Smith" > wrote in message
...

> (1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
> have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above
> and in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
> debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
> targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
> combat plane.

Don't worry about the engines; their position protects them (take a look at
a side-on image) very well. The only real problem with the A-10 is the
single-seat design; very high workload as it's involved in the most intense
operations.


--
Alan Erskine

[Russell]

that is why I am worried about them using it to replace F-111s here in
Australia. Our need is more for bomb trucks than fighters. Even the old
Mirages when bought they were fighters but we modified them for ground
attack 6 yrs after we got them.

"Bruce R" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
>> used against?
>>
>>
>
> I agree, and you won't see it being used as a "bomb truck" either.
>
>
> Bruce R
>
>
>

[Russell]

that is why I am worried about them using it to replace F-111s here in
Australia. Our need is more for bomb trucks than fighters. Even the old
Mirages when bought they were fighters but we modified them for ground
attack 6 yrs after we got them.

"Bruce R" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Which raises the question, who is it supposed to be
>> used against?
>>
>>
>
> I agree, and you won't see it being used as a "bomb truck" either.
>
>
> Bruce R
>
>
>

[john smith]

In article >,
"Alan Erskine" > wrote:

> Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the wrong
> aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too small etc.
> Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat A-10.

I remember back in the mid-/late 1980's, the Air Force was headed by
fighter pilots who thought anything that couldn't go supersonic didn't
deserve to be in the inventory. The plans were in the works to make the
F-16 the new "mud" fighter. Then along came Gulf War I and the A-10
strutted its stuff. Out went the F-16 Mud Fighter idea.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Alan Erskine" > wrote:

> Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the wrong
> aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too small etc.
> Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat A-10.

I remember back in the mid-/late 1980's, the Air Force was headed by
fighter pilots who thought anything that couldn't go supersonic didn't
deserve to be in the inventory. The plans were in the works to make the
F-16 the new "mud" fighter. Then along came Gulf War I and the A-10
strutted its stuff. Out went the F-16 Mud Fighter idea.

[Mitchell Holman]

john smith > wrote in news:jsmith-CBAD9C.20104813012007@news-
server.columbus.rr.com:

> In article >,
> "Alan Erskine" > wrote:
>
>> Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the wrong
>> aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too small etc.
>> Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat A-10.
>
> I remember back in the mid-/late 1980's, the Air Force was headed by
> fighter pilots who thought anything that couldn't go supersonic didn't
> deserve to be in the inventory. The plans were in the works to make the
> F-16 the new "mud" fighter. Then along came Gulf War I and the A-10
> strutted its stuff. Out went the F-16 Mud Fighter idea.
>


And now both have been cancelled.

[Mitchell Holman]

john smith > wrote in news:jsmith-CBAD9C.20104813012007@news-
server.columbus.rr.com:

> In article >,
> "Alan Erskine" > wrote:
>
>> Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the wrong
>> aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too small etc.
>> Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat A-10.
>
> I remember back in the mid-/late 1980's, the Air Force was headed by
> fighter pilots who thought anything that couldn't go supersonic didn't
> deserve to be in the inventory. The plans were in the works to make the
> F-16 the new "mud" fighter. Then along came Gulf War I and the A-10
> strutted its stuff. Out went the F-16 Mud Fighter idea.
>


And now both have been cancelled.

[Toolpusher]

Mitchell Holman > wrote in
:

> john smith > wrote in
> news:jsmith-CBAD9C.20104813012007@news- server.columbus.rr.com:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Alan Erskine" > wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the
>>> wrong aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too
>>> small etc. Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat
>>> A-10.
>>
>> I remember back in the mid-/late 1980's, the Air Force was headed by
>> fighter pilots who thought anything that couldn't go supersonic
>> didn't deserve to be in the inventory. The plans were in the works to
>> make the F-16 the new "mud" fighter. Then along came Gulf War I and
>> the A-10 strutted its stuff. Out went the F-16 Mud Fighter idea.
>>
>
>
> And now both have been cancelled.
>
>
>
>

The Lightning II is supposed to be replacing the RAF's Harriers & Jaguars
too, so we're in much the same boat.

[Toolpusher]

Mitchell Holman > wrote in
:

> john smith > wrote in
> news:jsmith-CBAD9C.20104813012007@news- server.columbus.rr.com:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Alan Erskine" > wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I wouldn't replace the A-10 with the F-35 - it's the
>>> wrong aircraft all the way - too fast; too 'fragile'; payload's too
>>> small etc. Only aircraft to replace the A-10 would be a two-seat
>>> A-10.
>>
>> I remember back in the mid-/late 1980's, the Air Force was headed by
>> fighter pilots who thought anything that couldn't go supersonic
>> didn't deserve to be in the inventory. The plans were in the works to
>> make the F-16 the new "mud" fighter. Then along came Gulf War I and
>> the A-10 strutted its stuff. Out went the F-16 Mud Fighter idea.
>>
>
>
> And now both have been cancelled.
>
>
>
>

The Lightning II is supposed to be replacing the RAF's Harriers & Jaguars
too, so we're in much the same boat.

[Ron]

"Roger Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur within
> close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of speed
> comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out.

Actually: the A-10 was designed to loiter the battleground at low level for
several hours, waiting for it's prey.
>
> Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle
> field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to
> transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of
> being slow enough to aim at the targets manually.

The battlefield was nowhere near friendly airbases in Yugoslavia, yet the
A-10 is one of the aircraft that was most suited to patrol that very same
playgound, both in Bosnia and in Kosovo. In fact: it is still the aircraft
of choice to patrol the skys above those territories.
>
>>And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount
>>of
>>damage an A-10 can survive.
>>
>
> I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest.
>
> How many battles have A10's been in?

The same battles the RAFs Tornados paid a visit: GulfWar-II (FYI: GW-I was
between Iraq and Iran, and led to the Tanker War), Bosnia, Kosovo,
Afghanistan, and Gulf War-III. I think the A-10 did FAR better in CAS than
the Tornado did.
>
> How many A10's have been sold outside the US?

None, although the USAF did at one point attempt to sell them abroad, when
it was decided to dispose of them just before GW-II. Turkey was a likely
candidate. Then GW-II happened, and the rest is history. The USAF doesn't
want to sell them, even the ones stored at DM AFB are not for sale. Nobody
can afford them, and even if they could, nobody is willing to buy the
associated Uranium Depleted Shells that go with the main weapon: the Avenger
gun. Well, maybe the RAF, but they won't buy any front line aircraft that
were not (in part) invented by the Brits...
>
> (1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
> have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above and
> in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
> debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
> targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
> combat plane.

Those big fan engines are its strong point: they are relatively cheap
(because derived from a commercial engine) and mounted outside the airframe
to minimise damage when they blow. Their location means they are shielded
mostly from the ground: the intakes by the huge wings, and the exhausts by
the rudders. I think you'll hardly find an engine better protected than
those of the A-10.

Ron
--
Non urinat in ventum

[Ron]

"Roger Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> The A10 was designed to deal with battles that were going to occur within
> close range of the bases it would be deployed in. So it's lack of speed
> comes out as a net advantage as long as it's armour holds out.

Actually: the A-10 was designed to loiter the battleground at low level for
several hours, waiting for it's prey.
>
> Nowadays it isn't so simple (unless you are the aggressor), the battle
> field might be far from your main bases which means that the ability to
> transition to the combat area quickly could outweigh the advantages of
> being slow enough to aim at the targets manually.

The battlefield was nowhere near friendly airbases in Yugoslavia, yet the
A-10 is one of the aircraft that was most suited to patrol that very same
playgound, both in Bosnia and in Kosovo. In fact: it is still the aircraft
of choice to patrol the skys above those territories.
>
>>And don't forget battle damage; no aircraft flying can absorb the amount
>>of
>>damage an A-10 can survive.
>>
>
> I don't doubt it (1) but out of interest.
>
> How many battles have A10's been in?

The same battles the RAFs Tornados paid a visit: GulfWar-II (FYI: GW-I was
between Iraq and Iran, and led to the Tanker War), Bosnia, Kosovo,
Afghanistan, and Gulf War-III. I think the A-10 did FAR better in CAS than
the Tornado did.
>
> How many A10's have been sold outside the US?

None, although the USAF did at one point attempt to sell them abroad, when
it was decided to dispose of them just before GW-II. Turkey was a likely
candidate. Then GW-II happened, and the rest is history. The USAF doesn't
want to sell them, even the ones stored at DM AFB are not for sale. Nobody
can afford them, and even if they could, nobody is willing to buy the
associated Uranium Depleted Shells that go with the main weapon: the Avenger
gun. Well, maybe the RAF, but they won't buy any front line aircraft that
were not (in part) invented by the Brits...
>
> (1) Actually those big fan engines have always worried me, I
> have always thought that stuff designed/targeted to explode just above and
> in front of the A10 so that the engines run through all the
> debris/shrapnel would be extremely effective, as a bonus for such
> targeting the top of an A10 is (AIUI) barely any tougher than any other
> combat plane.

Those big fan engines are its strong point: they are relatively cheap
(because derived from a commercial engine) and mounted outside the airframe
to minimise damage when they blow. Their location means they are shielded
mostly from the ground: the intakes by the huge wings, and the exhausts by
the rudders. I think you'll hardly find an engine better protected than
those of the A-10.

Ron
--
Non urinat in ventum