A-10 gear fairing

A question for any Warthog jocks (or fans) out the

Why is the front of the right gear fairing on all A-10s painted gloss
black? Is is a radome of some sort? If so, what for?

Unless, of course, you would have to kill me if you told me, etc...

Just curious,

Kirk
Old F-4 WSO

I believe it's a Radar Warning Reciever.

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
m...
A question for any Warthog jocks (or fans) out the

Why is the front of the right gear fairing on all A-10s painted gloss
black? Is is a radome of some sort? If so, what for?

Unless, of course, you would have to kill me if you told me, etc...

Just curious,

Kirk
Old F-4 WSO

Matt wrote:

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
m...
A question for any Warthog jocks (or fans) out the

Why is the front of the right gear fairing on all A-10s painted gloss
black? Is is a radome of some sort? If so, what for?

Unless, of course, you would have to kill me if you told me, etc...

Just curious,

Kirk
Old F-4 WSO

I believe it's a Radar Warning Reciever.

Probably not, as the forward RWR antennae are buttons on either side of the
nose, above the gun muzzle. This must be something fairly recent, as it
only seems to appear in photos of grey A-10s.

Guy

Probably not, as the forward RWR antennae are buttons on either side of the
nose, above the gun muzzle. This must be something fairly recent, as it
only seems to appear in photos of grey A-10s.

Well, that's over 10 years, right? Weren't they re-painted as a result
of experience in Desert Storm?

There was a feeling that the A-10s were painted olive drab because the
Air Force was piqued at being forced to acquire an aircraft that did
Army work. Any truth to that?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote in message news

There was a feeling that the A-10s were painted olive drab because the
Air Force was piqued at being forced to acquire an aircraft that did
Army work. Any truth to that?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com


Dan,

One hears (and reads about) the supposed dislike of the A-10 by the
"Air Force". I wonder where it all started - I never heard anyone
badmouth the Hog during my 20 years in, and everybody who flew it
loved it. The bull**** about "the brass hates it because it isn't
supersonic" is really an insult to the professionalism of the Air
Force. Anyway, the AF wanted the A-10 to get a big piece of stopping
the WP in the Fulda Gap, as well as do CAS (which has always been an
AF mission). In no way was it "forced" on the AF. Now, as a single
role airplane, it is naturally more at risk whenever budget cuts are
in the air, but there is really no way around that - when you are
limited on numbers, your airplane have to be able to do multiple
tasks, and as great as the Hog is for CAS and BAI, it still really
can't do OCA or DCA (well, maybe, against some of the Air Forces out
there!!!).

I think the late Jeff Ethell had a lot to do with some of the bogus
rumors about military aviation. He was great when talking about his
experiences flying WW2 warbirds, but a lot of what he said about
current combat aircraft was often wrong - I cringe when I hear some of
the things he says on Discovery Wings!

Kirk

On 24 Sep 2003 08:29:47 -0700, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

Cub Driver wrote in message news

There was a feeling that the A-10s were painted olive drab because the
Air Force was piqued at being forced to acquire an aircraft that did
Army work. Any truth to that?

all the best -- Dan Ford
No truth at all. The color is a logical choice because the airplane is
designed to work low against the earth tones. You also see some of the
A-10s have been painted in grays. Does that mean they were expected to
do Navy work?

Dan,

One hears (and reads about) the supposed dislike of the A-10 by the
"Air Force". I wonder where it all started - I never heard anyone
badmouth the Hog during my 20 years in, and everybody who flew it
loved it. The bull**** about "the brass hates it because it isn't
supersonic" is really an insult to the professionalism of the Air
Force. Anyway, the AF wanted the A-10 to get a big piece of stopping
the WP in the Fulda Gap, as well as do CAS (which has always been an
AF mission). In no way was it "forced" on the AF. Now, as a single
role airplane, it is naturally more at risk whenever budget cuts are
in the air, but there is really no way around that - when you are
limited on numbers, your airplane have to be able to do multiple
tasks, and as great as the Hog is for CAS and BAI, it still really
can't do OCA or DCA (well, maybe, against some of the Air Forces out
there!!!).

Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I think in the past I
have said it myself. The idea that the AF is "anti-CAS" or that there
is some sort of elitist panache to supersonic is flat wrong.

I think the late Jeff Ethell had a lot to do with some of the bogus
rumors about military aviation. He was great when talking about his
experiences flying WW2 warbirds, but a lot of what he said about
current combat aircraft was often wrong - I cringe when I hear some of
the things he says on Discovery Wings!

While Jeff did some pretty good historical research ("One Day in a
Long War" is excellent), I've often wondered how an aficionado becomes
an expert without actually military experience. Regardless of the
sincerity and conscientiousness of the research, it's simply a fact
that someone in the civilian world is going to be "out of the loop"
when it comes to tactics development and classified widgetry.

Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I think in the past I
have said it myself. The idea that the AF is "anti-CAS" or that there
is some sort of elitist panache to supersonic is flat wrong.



Perhaps. But I remember reading in the Myrtle Beach newspaper that the
commander of MBAFB was in hot water because he had been publicly discussing his
desires to replace the A-10 with F-16's. The reason given in the newspaper IIRC
was that the A-10 was too slow for the assignment.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

Keeper of the Humour List at http://members.aol.com/PirateJohn/pirate1.html

"Mother, mother ocean... I have heard your call" - Jimmy Buffett, A Pirate
Looks At Forty.

On 24 Sep 2003 18:04:47 GMT, OSPAM (PirateJohn)
wrote:

Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I think in the past I
have said it myself. The idea that the AF is "anti-CAS" or that there
is some sort of elitist panache to supersonic is flat wrong.



Perhaps. But I remember reading in the Myrtle Beach newspaper that the
commander of MBAFB was in hot water because he had been publicly discussing his
desires to replace the A-10 with F-16's. The reason given in the newspaper IIRC
was that the A-10 was too slow for the assignment.


Duh? Lemme see, would I like to keep driving my Yugo or get upgraded
to a Porsche Carrera S?

Of course! Any fighter aviator would be eager to switch from Hogs to
Vipers (except for that occasional strange group that seems to have an
inherited dislike of the electric jet.) And, it isn't much of a
stretch to suggest that the A-10 over the years with improvements in
air defenses could be considered to be too slow for some tasking. I
don't see a conflict in any of that.

But, I reiterate, the idea that the AF is "anti-CAS" is flat wrong.
CAS changes. Weapons change. Tactics change. CAS isn't necessarily
always "enemy in the wire", nape and strafe at 50 feet, "danger
close." It can be stand-off with precision munitions. It can be lased
or GPS'd. It can be anti-armor or anti-personnel. But, it's always
about US guys needing help from other US guys and the AF has never
been reluctant to do that.

And, the idea that the airplane isn't supersonic doesn't mean squat.
Which is more important--the top speed of a Corvette is 163 MPH or the
0-60 time is less than 6 seconds? The ability to have adequate power
to accelerate, to regain altitude, to sustain G is what's important.

There must assuredly has been and still is, a "fighter pilot mafia".
It's a collection of guys that fight hard to get the best equipment to
do the job, whatever it might be. But, don't attribute some sort of
elitism to them and don't suggest that they are anti-CAS.

On 24 Sep 2003 08:29:47 -0700, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

One hears (and reads about) the supposed dislike of the A-10 by the
"Air Force". I wonder where it all started - I never heard anyone
badmouth the Hog during my 20 years in, and everybody who flew it
loved it. The bull**** about "the brass hates it because it isn't
supersonic" is really an insult to the professionalism of the Air
Force. Anyway, the AF wanted the A-10 to get a big piece of stopping
the WP in the Fulda Gap, as well as do CAS (which has always been an
AF mission). In no way was it "forced" on the AF. Now, as a single

Kirk, you must read Campbell's book The Warthog and the Close Air
Support Support, from Naval Institute Press. He was an A-10 pilot (and
A-7s for the Navy before that!) and he certainly lays out the case
that only the power of the U.S. Congress forced the A-10 down the
throat of the Air Force brass, and that the brass spent the next 20
years trying to get rid of it.

Even the supersonic b.s. seems to be pretty well established--thus the
F-16 as the "successor" to the A-10. (The F-16's main virtue as a CAS
aircraft seems to be that it can fly supersonic if it's not carrying
any CAS stores

Of course the pilots loved it. It's a great plane.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...f=nosim/annals

Not my arguments! Campbell's.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:46:10 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

No truth at all. The color is a logical choice because the airplane is
designed to work low against the earth tones. You also see some of the
A-10s have been painted in grays. Does that mean they were expected to
do Navy work?

I believe that all the AF Warthogs are gray, and were painted thus as
a result of the pilots' unhappiness at flying an olive drab aircraft
at altitude in Desert Storm and of course in Kosovo (15,000 ft!).

Certainly the 75th FS Warthogs in Gulf War II were gray:
www.warbirdforum.com/avg.htm

"The paint scheme had nearly always been dark green--apparently to
show 'solidarity' with the Army" and for camo

A 1997 GAO report on the Gulf War critized the "problematical paint
scheme"

"Accounting for the new higher altitude attack preferences and tacitly
admitting that the green paint scheme had been a factor in Desert
Storm losses, the service repainted Hogs light gray."

(Quotes from Campbell)



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com