F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

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)

"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!

"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!

"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

"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

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

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

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.

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 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.