A-10 gear fairing

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

Evidently this is not true of Hog drivers. (And anyhow, aren't *all"
fighter pilots strange?)

But, I reiterate, the idea that the AF is "anti-CAS" is flat wrong.

Ed, you'd better read Campbell's book and then report back. He quotes
page after page of Air Force argument that your experience in Vietnam
was an anomaly that would never be repeated, that interdiction and not
CAS was what we needed, and that the A-1 and the A-10 would only get
in the way when the Russian tanks came through the Fulda Gap.


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 Thu, 25 Sep 2003 04:57:52 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:



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

Evidently this is not true of Hog drivers. (And anyhow, aren't *all"
fighter pilots strange?)

Humans all tend to make the best of a bad situation. Take someone
before an assignment and ask them to list their preferences. Not many
folks will put the A-10 ahead of the Viper, Eagle or now, Raptor. Once
assigned and wrapped up in the mission, you then get the syndrom of
"mine is better" regardless of the airplane. Certainly some Hog
drivers love their airplane, but if told the unit was transitioning to
something a little more "swoopy" they'd eat it up.

And, while there may be a commonality of "strangeness", let me
reiterate my oft-stated position that not all folks assigned to fly
tactical aircraft are "fighter pilots."

But, I reiterate, the idea that the AF is "anti-CAS" is flat wrong.

Ed, you'd better read Campbell's book and then report back. He quotes
page after page of Air Force argument that your experience in Vietnam
was an anomaly that would never be repeated, that interdiction and not
CAS was what we needed, and that the A-1 and the A-10 would only get
in the way when the Russian tanks came through the Fulda Gap.

I'll try to get to Campbell's book, but having checked the summary on
Amazon, I can almost predict what it says. There was great debate at
the time of acquisition regarding whether we were "reliving the last
war" with the A-10. It would have been a great in-country airplane for
SEA. The real concern was whether the plain-vanilla airplane was going
to be survivable in Europe in a more intense conflict.

Question two, was the definitions of CAS and interdiction. There was
even a transition mission defined, BAI (battlefield area
interdiction)--neither CAS nor true interdiction, but systematic
attacking of the second and third echelon of the advancing horde. If
you did a good BAI job, the requirement for true CAS was minimized.

Issue three, the development of the Army aviation component to better
provide supplemental firepower to artillery. If you got good gunships,
not just gun on Hueys, but Cobras and Apaches optimized for ground
attack and survivability, you lessened the need for "fast movers."

And, problem four, the difficulty in a fluid tactical environment with
deconflicting airspace. You can't be lobbing artillery in where
airplanes are operating. You can't be zooming around willy-nilly at
low altitude of rotary wings are transiting. You must have close
control of the airspace and delivery designations to effectively
employ "danger close." And, for a variety of reasons (economic,
political, practical--pick one,) we simultaneously add the demise of
the airborne FAC in a slow-mover fixed wing.

Did I get the high points? Do I still have to buy the book?

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 04:52:25 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

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)

Well, I recall gray hogs as far back as '85 when we were doing
defensive ACM training support with AT-38s deployed to Davis-Monthan.
For air/air, the gray was much harder to see than the green--partly
contrast against the light desert background and partly silhouette.

From the ground, the color is almost irrelevant. Airplanes against the
sky typically show silhouette black.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 04:42:55 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

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

The F-16 is only a "successor" to the A-10 by default. The aircraft
was purchased as a successor to the F-4 for the ground attack mission.
The A-10 was purchased nearly simultaneously.

The F-16 is multi-mission capable, the Hog is single task. Which is
more economical in a shrinking budget environment?

There's really no such thing as a "CAS store"--a bomb is a bomb. You
could call the gun a CAS weapon and the Viper is very supersonic with
gun only. You could hang a Mk-80 series low-drag bomb on a pylon and
haul it supersonic (you'd probably damage the fins and tail cone, but
you could go fast.) The point is that while supersonic is an
interesting capability, it has little tactical application except for
maybe an interceptor getting to point of engagement quickly. The
advantage comes in the acceleration and g-sustainability at actual
operating speed.

Cub Driver wrote in message news).

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.

I'll have to get his book and read it. However, that position is not
reflected in the actual operational use of the A-10, which has been in
the limelight of every conflict we have faught since we got it - not a
good way to make a plane look bad! There was also a lot of opposition
to the F-4, and to the F-16, and even to the F-111 when they were all
introduced, but they all turned out to be excellent weapons. I think
only the F-15 had no opponents from the start! And we go back to the
problem of single role aircraft - when you are cutting back, they are
the first to go, regardless of how good they are. Once the military
started getting funds again, the A-10 started getting a bunch of
excellent upgrades (LASTE,Aim-9 rails, etc.), and now they have
finally added a decent targeting pod - not something you do to a
"despised" weapon system. If only they would put some new motors on
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

Supersonic performance is so misunderstood by non-military aviators.
Until the current generation of supercruise fighters become
operational, supersonic performance was mainly an air defense asset,
where intercept time was crucial. It also implied a high
thrust-to-weight, which is nice to have in any fighter, but at the
cost of persistence. With the F-16 (and F-4 before, and Mirage, etc)
you have the best of both worlds: clean, you can go fast; load it up,
you can carry lots of stuff that goes boom and still turn and burn.
As a side note, it always amazed me how the brit press badmouthed the
F-15E saying it would be a terrible low altitude fighter bomber
because of it's high wing loading, then praise their industry for
turning an excellent low altitude fighter bomber (Tornado) into an air
defense fighter (Tornado F3).

Back to the F-16 and CAS, it's asset is that there are a lot of them,
they have excellent A/G sensors and targeting systems, they carry a
useful combat load, and they can get to the area fast and survive
pretty good. Not bad for a plane that was originally designed to be a
day only "guns and heaters" dogfigher!

Finally, about the paint - When the primary threat was the WP, all AF
tactical aircraft with an air-to-ground role had a dark green paint
scheme - the European 1, I think it was called - nice dark wraparound
that finally got rid of the idiotic white bellies (and the givaway
belly flash) that worked great in Europe but sucked big time at
Nellis! Then when the F-16 came into the inventory, the fashion
changed to grays, and even the F-4 got a nice gray cammo. A-10s just
took longer, I guess.

The whole subject of aircraft camouflage is fascinating; Keith Ferris
wrote some interesting stuff about it - some of our F-4Cs at Luke had
his schemes on them when I went through RTU and boy were they neat
looking.

All OT, anyway, and still no answer to my original question!

Regards,

Kirk

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:24:11 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

[stuff snipped]

Issue three, the development of the Army aviation component to better
provide supplemental firepower to artillery. If you got good gunships,
not just gun on Hueys, but Cobras and Apaches optimized for ground
attack and survivability, you lessened the need for "fast movers."

And, problem four, the difficulty in a fluid tactical environment with
deconflicting airspace. You can't be lobbing artillery in where
airplanes are operating. You can't be zooming around willy-nilly at
low altitude of rotary wings are transiting. You must have close
control of the airspace and delivery designations to effectively
employ "danger close." And, for a variety of reasons (economic,
political, practical--pick one,) we simultaneously add the demise of
the airborne FAC in a slow-mover fixed wing.

Ed,

Didn't you work as an ALO with a division in Germany at one point?
I'd like to hear about your experiences working with ground-pounders,
and your opinions on Army aviation, if any.

John Hairell )

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
om...
Finally, about the paint - When the primary threat was the WP, all AF
tactical aircraft with an air-to-ground role had a dark green paint
scheme - the European 1, I think it was called - nice dark wraparound
that finally got rid of the idiotic white bellies (and the givaway
belly flash) that worked great in Europe but sucked big time at
Nellis! Then when the F-16 came into the inventory, the fashion
changed to grays, and even the F-4 got a nice gray cammo. A-10s just
took longer, I guess.
Kirk

Guess you never saw an F-102, F-106 or even an F-101. The name of the paint
was even Air Defense Gray. Nothing new with the advent of the F-16.

Tex

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

Guess you never saw an F-102, F-106 or even an F-101. The name of the
paint
was even Air Defense Gray. Nothing new with the advent of the F-16.


Well, he did say "tactical aircraft with an air-to-ground role". I don't
recall ever seeing a gray F-102.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:25:25 -0400, John Hairell
wrote:

Ed,

Didn't you work as an ALO with a division in Germany at one point?
I'd like to hear about your experiences working with ground-pounders,
and your opinions on Army aviation, if any.

John Hairell )

No, emphatically no. Anyone who spends more than one tour (penance) in
the TACS (Tactical Air Control System--i.e., FACs and ALOs) is of
minimal value. Sorry in advance to those career FAC/ALOs that I've
offended.

I was an ALO in the 4th ID, Fort Carson Colorado from '85-'87. This
was after being passed over seven times for O-5 and with an extension
in service for two years. Assignment taken to get a move from Holloman
AFB (great place to fly, lousy place to retire) to Colorado Springs.
Nuff said.

I liked, and more importantly respected, everyone that I ever
encountered in Army Aviation. Mas grande cojones, en todos.

"Tex Houston" wrote in message news

Guess you never saw an F-102, F-106 or even an F-101. The name of the
paint
was even Air Defense Gray. Nothing new with the advent of the F-16.

Tex,

Sure, and even some ADC-tasked F-4s and T-33s (the Keflavic F-4Es come
to mind). Different gray, altogether - I don't think the glossy ADC
Gray was a camouflage at all! I was referring to the air combat (for
lack of a better term) flat multiple shade of gray scheme that the
F-16 introduced and that has quickly spread across the whole world, it
seems. I don't remember seeing any air defense (Guard or Reserve)
F-15s in ADC gray, but I could just be getting old...

Even the Navy switched from it's glossy gray and white paint schemes
to a very flat multiple gray scheme (which seems to really get dirty
on ship!).

Not particularly good looking, but very effective in the air, which is
what counts in the end, after all.

Interestingly, if you look at the late WW2 german camouflage schemes,
especially their nightfighters, they seem to have come to almost the
same conclusion about the best color to hide a plane in the air. By
that time, they probably has so many extra (fuel-less) planes that
their main concern was airborne concealment (to save valuable pilots),
so they moved to shades of gray.

I always thought that the Southeast Asia scheme (green/brown on top,
white bottom) was an amazingly stupid way to "camouflage" an airplane,
unless you are going to park it on a dirt road in the jungle (most
ramps aren't painted green and brown), or upside down in snow. In the
air, if you are close enough to see colors, you might as well turn
your gun on - and the white belly flash would attract aggressors for
miles around when you made a low altitude comm out turn. The
wraparound dark green European 1 scheme was a huge improvement,
although it did take some learning to initially figure out which way
lead was turning in tac spread!

Sigh, those were the days...

Kirk