back to article Possible reprieve for the venerable A-10 Warthog

“Uglier things have been spotted in the sky, but not by reliable witnesses” – and, in the case of the A10 “Warthog”, it'll be the ugliest thing in the sky for a lot longer than the US Air Force wanted. Devoted to the Toothless Tiger Moth, the F-35, the Air Force wants the ancient-but-nearly-indestructible A-10 decommissioned …

Page:

  1. Korev Silver badge
    Pint

    Pint due.

    “Uglier things have been spotted in the sky, but not by reliable witnesses”

    This for whoever came up with that quote -->

    1. Alister

      Re: Pint due.

      I think it's one of Douglas Adams' originally.

      1. wolfetone Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Pint due.

        "Like all Vogon ships, it looked as if it had been not so much designed, as congealed. The unpleasant yellow lumps and edifices which protruded from it at unsightly angles would have disfigured the looks of most ships, but in this case, that was sadly impossible. Uglier things have been spotted in the skies, but not by reliable witnesses.” - Douglas Adams - The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

        You like a pint, he likes a pint, everyone gets a pint.

    2. Commswonk

      Re: Pint due.

      Uglier things have been spotted in the sky, but not by reliable witnesses

      A rare and very welcome win for function over form. That's got to be a few more pints for the designers as well as those who have decided to keep it in service.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pint due.

        Uglier things have been spotted in the sky, but not by reliable witnesses

        Few have seen the elusive Airbus Beluga...

        I wouldn't even call the A-10 ugly. In person it's an impressive sight. It's a distinctive aircraft, up there with the SR-71, F-104, B-2, Concorde...

        1. Commswonk

          Re: Pint due.

          I wouldn't even call the A-10 ugly. In person it's an impressive sight. It's a distinctive aircraft, up there with the SR-71, F-104, B-2, Concorde...

          Oi! You missed the Spitfire off your list.

        2. JLV

          Re: Pint due.

          Distinctive...

          My take seeing an F-117 Nighthawk up close @ Paris airshow was that it looked like a cheesy low-budget space fighter mockup put together by the FX guys from Sharknado for a Battlestar Galactica 1 ripoff directed by Kim Jung-On, based on a novel by LR Hubbard. Its angles just grate on your optic nerves and feel wrong on a plane. You don't get that impression from afar, but in real life it is one ugly duckling.

          By that token, I find the Warthog quietly impressive. Plus, its ability to do low speed & height overflights because of high damage tolerance is pretty relevant nowadays when the idea is to avoid nuking the locals' weddings. Or not doing some blue-on-blue because you are flying by at 600 mph and 20000', just in case you collided one of HMs 24 $150m low-cost/hi-volume plane with a mosquito pushed by an angry tailwind.

          Good call on the A10, assuming it's for sound military reasons and not just the local senators looking out for their pork come what may.

          1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

            Iraq 2003. Blue-on-blue A-10s at 10000.

            @JLV

            Or not doing some blue-on-blue because you are flying by at 600 mph and 20000',

            Alas, in the heat of battle, confusion, lack of communication, misunderstanding, talking of different targets...

            Death of 1 British soldier and 5 injured.

            British inquest returned a narrative verdict.

            Cockpit video:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6-2NJhnf4

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcGoXiUOsqA

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_Fighter_Squadron,_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_incident

            Not the first, won't be the last

        3. Bloakey1

          Re: Pint due.

          <snip>

          "Few have seen the elusive Airbus Beluga..."

          <snip>

          Come over to Spain, I see it quiet regularly at the Military / Airbus side of Seville airport, it brings in A400 bits and pieces for construction there.

          The A10 is like the Harrier, a very good design and superb at ground support due to its slow speed and superb armour. The PBI have need of a platform such as this when fast movers are just not practical.

      2. Dr Dan Holdsworth

        Re: Pint due.

        Keeping a known-working design like this flying for a while longer actually seems like quite good sense. Especially as recently we seem to have been having a run of war and insurgencies involving not so sophisticated adversaries against whom a modern fighter jet is overkill. A Warthog on the other hand is very well armed, quite well armoured and extremely good at delivering a large amount of damage to a target at little risk to its self.

    3. PassiveSmoking

      Re: Pint due.

      It's Douglas Adams' description of Vogon ships from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

    4. Wolfclaw

      Re: Pint due.

      I think was directed at Hillary Clinton !

      1. fandom

        Re: Pint due.

        Usually I am one of the most pacific, even passive, people you will ever meet.

        But political nuts that insist on turning any thread into political shit make me wish you could legally shoot them on sight.

        1. Gary Bickford

          Re: Pint due.

          > But political nuts that insist on turning any thread into political shit make me wish you could legally shoot them on sight.

          To paraphrase, "If it's politician season, why can't we shoot them?" :D

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Pint due.

            To paraphrase, "If it's politician season, why can't we shoot them?" :D

            With the 30mm cannon, the rocket pods, or the Mavericks? :D

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pint due.

        @ Wolfclaw

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1EnRLZ3p4o

        TrumpLand by Michael Moore

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Pint due

          Michael Moore down voted by Trumpeteers and Palineers, how odd. Moore has a point, all points. He like me, can feel the pain among Republicans. If you don't vote for Trump you feel bad about not voting Republican, If you vote, you know you are voting for a twat, if you vote third party, you know it's futile and if you vote for Clinton you feel you have voted for the enemy (in a two party system). I can feel your pain and I don't envy you at all. It's not your fault, thing just vent very wrong inside the GOP years ago.

      3. Hollerithevo

        Re: Pint due.

        @fandom, there are some people who see the word 'ugly' and reach for the first woman who pops into their brains in order to make a nasty crack. Not even sure it's political -- it's just Mrs Clinton is a rather famous woman.

  2. redpawn

    Don't look to the past

    It's a relic just like traditional paper weights. Motorized paper weights are much better and so is the F-35. Progress must not be held back for the sake of tradition.

    The jet engines on my paper weights hold my documents more firmly to my desk than any gravity powered ones. I will transition to rocket powered paper weights as soon as they become available and fervently support research into ion drive paper weights. Only this attitude will save the US military.

    1. James 51
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Don't look to the past

      Amanfrommars in a halloween costume?

    2. roytrubshaw
      Pint

      Re: Don't look to the past

      Have a pint (and an upvote)!

      " I will transition to rocket powered paper weights as soon as they become available and fervently support research into ion drive paper weights"

      <pedant>

      The rocket-powered paperweight is only good for short-term usage, so as long as you only require your papers to be held down for a few minutes at a time then you're OK; the ion-drive paperweight is a long-term solution for those that require their papers to be weighted for months (possibly years) at a time. They address two different sets of requirements, so you don't need to replace your rocket-powered paperweights with ion-drive paperweights.

      </pedant>

      1. Timbo

        Re: Don't look to the past

        I find my rocket-powered paperweights to be very good...as very shortly after deploying them on a new set of paper invoices and despatch notes they all disappear leaving behind just some black and charred remnants...it certainly makes book keeping very easy as there's nothing to input ;-)

        However, my accountant is insisting I downgrade to ice paperweights, which makes the ink run but the paper still looks like paper, and hence he can embellish our accounts a little more thoughtfully, when submitting our annual nett loss to Companies House ;-)

        1. dmacleo

          Re: Don't look to the past

          put a couple of those paperweights onto your accountant.

          problem solved.

          new accountant needed though....

    3. Professur

      Re: Don't look to the past

      Noone who's ever been either in front of, or behind an A-10 will ever call it a relic. It's worth remembering that the US marines bought out the UK of all Harrier stock they could get their hands on. And while the UK won't have anything that can fly off their new carrier for a while still (provided pilots weigh in correctly and there's no tail wind, and the computers all work, etc) the marines are still more than happy with their relic jump jets. New in the military is frequently nothing more than a way to funnel public money into rich people's pockets.

      1. Beachrider

        Harriers in the US Marine Corps...

        Harrier is a completely different thing than A-10. A-10 is just very susceptible whenever other aircraft or drones are nearby. It drags refueling craft within 250 miles of the warzone, too. It is NOT useless, just becoming more limited in scope. A-35 and Drones are supposed to take-on this work, but they will do it very differently.

        There are no more Hawker Siddeleys in active service, since the late 1980s.

    4. Ian Michael Gumby
      WTF?

      @redpawn ...Re: Don't look to the past

      Seriously dude, you must not be an engineer or a ground pounder who wants some air cover for more than 5 minutes.

      There those in the USAF who wants a single aircraft to do it all. However, the A10 as a specialty aircraft has no competition. The only downside is that it shoots depleted Uranium rounds which are best when used against tanks other hardened targets.

      Go back to WWII and take a look at the P-47 and the P-51.

      P-51 air superiority fighter. But for ground attacks... the P-47 wins hands down.

      You can go thru a bunch of stories and stats, but most of the P-51s that were shot down were shot down on ground attacks. P-47... they took a beating and kept on flying. They wouldn't win a lot of dogfights, but as a ground attack aircraft.. they tore shit up.

      1. Ashley_Pomeroy

        Re: @redpawn ...Don't look to the past

        If we're being pedantic the P-47 was optimised for high-altitude combat - the fuselage was basically a massive turbosupercharger, and the late-war P-47M could do 470mph at 30,000 feet, which was pretty slick for the 1940s.

        The problem is that it had a very short range, and when the P-51 was available in quantity the P-47 was repurposed for the ground role. The huge size and powerful engine could carry almost as much ordnance as a light bomber.

        Sadly the vast majority were scrapped at the end of the war, which was problematic when Korea came around; the P-51/F-51 was still available but, as you say, the liquid cooling system was very vulnerable to ground fire.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Boffin

          Re: @redpawn ...Don't look to the past

          The P-47 Was built around a huge radial engine. Bit different than the P-51s and could take a lot more punishment.

          With the supercharger the P-51 was a superior air to air fighter, but again, couldn't take the punishment.

          There are stories where the Germans ran out of ammo while attempting to shoot down a P-47.

          The nice thing is that you can go on to You Tube and find videos about all of these aircraft.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: @redpawn ...Don't look to the past

        ".....They wouldn't win a lot of dogfights....." I upvoted the rest of the post but the idea the Thunderbolt couldn't dogfight is simply untrue. The original P-47Cs had problems with slow climb rates and acceleration over Europe, but even the early P-47Cs were knocking down Luftwaffe fighters long before the paddle-bladed propeller was added. I suggest you read up on Hub Zemke and his Wolfpack for an idea of just how effective the P-47 could be in aerial combat. Ironically, Zemke himself was captured when the wing of his P-51 Mustang was torn off by turbulence, something that would have been unlikely in the tougher Thunderbolt.

  3. Known Hero

    I can imagine some of the choice quotes from that meeting.

    "I don't give a shit if they work I want that budget"

  4. Mark 85

    Good on them, I say...

    The A-10 is one welcome sight by any ground-pounder in a firefight. No bells and whistles, no super-fast speed. It just loiters over the battlefield, does it's job and gets the pilot back home. With the AF mentality that they're about "fighters and bombers.. oh and rockets.." they have hated the A-10 since it was first brought out. I'm truly surprised that the DoD hasn't taken it away from them and either given it to the Army and the Marines since they fly their own close air support. Well, not as much now as they did in Vietnam with the Cobra and the OV10. But I'm sure the frontline troops would appreciate it.

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      Re: Good on them, I say...

      Yesterday the BBC reported that IS are using armoured, explosive suicide cars and that ground troops have trouble taking them out with rockets fast enough.

      Seems like a perfect application for an aircraft with a big gun and ability to loiter.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good on them, I say...

        At first glance I thought you said US not IS, and I still wasn't surprised.

      2. stu 19

        On Loitering Aircraft.

        Isn't the Apache a better loiterer?

        Nothing quite beats an aircraft that can engage with a remote stand off from AWACS targeting and remain out of sight!

        I recall a firepower demo that the A10 used to do in Warminster, They used to routinely fly it up a valley to take out dummy targets against real small arms fire.

        Ugly and scary!

        1. james 68

          Re: On Loitering Aircraft.

          "Isn't the Apache a better loiterer?"

          No, helicopters carry less fuel and are more thirsty, fixed wing aircraft have much longer loiter times to the tune of several hours (time they can remain airborn).

          The Apache has a much longer "time on target" as it can hover and stay pointed nose on where a fixed wing aircraft will by necessity overfly the target to remain airborn. I'm wondering if that is what you meant?

        2. Fazal Majid

          Re: On Loitering Aircraft.

          "Isn't the Apache a better loiterer"

          Helicopters are notoriously vulnerable, even to small-arms fire. The A-10 on the other hand can still fly even when huge chunks of the superstructure have been blown away by cannon fire.

        3. Spanners Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: On Loitering Aircraft.

          Isn't the Apache a better loiterer?

          Loitering is not the only thing. The Feet want something overhead that is slow enough to be accurate, tough enough to take punishment, dangerous enough to take out everything from a piece of concrete to a main battle tank and bowel looseningly scary. That's an A10 then...

          Those things sound weird!

    2. SkippyBing

      Re: Good on them, I say...

      I can't remember the exact details but the US Army aren't allowed fixed wing tactical combat aircraft under the Key West agreement which defined the roles of air power in the three services. So currently there's no way they could operate the A-10. I suspect the Marines wouldn't want them as their doctrine is to be able to deploy as part of a maritime force on USN shipping and good as it is the A-10 isn't carrier capable. Actually I think the USMC doctrine is currently to go for an all VSTOL fleet but that's another issue.

      1. frank ly

        Re: Good on them, I say...

        "... the US Army aren't allowed fixed wing tactical combat aircraft under the Key West agreement which defined the roles of air power in the three services."

        That's not an 'agreement'; it's a treaty between rival powers.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Good on them, I say...

          True, but the USAF "prima donna" attitude is becoming a real issues. Especially when rules of engagements actually neuter much of the power of the airplanes it likes so much, while those it doesnt' like (the A-10...) fit perfectly (and are probably cheaper to deploy and maintain on-site).

          Also, it looks it never learnt anything from the "missile only" debacle of the sixties. It still stubbornly believes in "one multirole airplane model, one weapon technology only" doctrine (now, it's radar stealth), despite reality shown it worked and works on paper only.

      2. Tiweh

        Re: Good on them, I say...

        Still, while they're putting new wings on, they could make them fold. The airframe is pretty beefy already, so weld on a tailhook mount and uprate the front undercarriage a bit...

        BAe managed to toughen up the Hawk into the carrier-capable Goshawk for the USN, so there is a precedent.

        1. james 68

          Re: Good on them, I say...

          "uprate the front undercarriage a bit..."

          That may not be necessary. The A-10 already has ruggedised landing gear to fulfill it's role of flying from forward bases with only semi-prepared runways. It also has something else going for it, it has short take off and landing capabilities and could easily launch from a American sized carrier deck even without catapult assistance..... all that's missing is the arrestor hook.

          I have heard previously from some American aircrew that A-10s have used Nimitz as an FOB on occasion this is plausible, but I have zero proof to back their claims.

          1. Aladdin Sane

            Re: Good on them, I say...

            I wonder how they'd fair on a large carrier with a ski jump. Like the Queen Elizabeth class for example.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Good on them, I say...

              As for the A-10 launching from a carrier, I wonder how it would fare taking off from the Admiral Kutnetsov?

              1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

                Re: Good on them, I say...

                As for the A-10 launching from a carrier

                It passes the stall speed requirement and can fly at the speed + attack angle you have after leaving a Short Takeoff ramp. So it will not have an issue.

                Not that this is likely to happen any time soon in the current political climate. Even if ISIS takes half of the world (not likely), the yanks and the Russians will continue to bicker whose hired goons are less murderous today. Same as they do across the middle east at the moment.

          2. Fr. Ted Crilly Silver badge

            Re: Good on them, I say...

            You're not thinking of OV10 bronco's are you ?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QQuyql36aY

            A10 has always suffered from being decidedly 'non cosmetic' (Gen Spike Momyer) and therefore not USAF'y just like the Skyraider did before and THAT was a navy aircraft too....

      3. Stoneshop
        Coat

        Re: Good on them, I say...

        the US Army aren't allowed fixed wing tactical combat aircraft

        The article says the wings will be replaced, which implies they're not fixed.

        1. James 51

          Re: Good on them, I say...

          I imagine it's the same idea as replacing a body part on your car. You're not going to say that the roof isn't fixed just because it could technically be replaced if the manufacture decided to give the model a new lease of life and changed it for you.

        2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

          Re: Good on them, I say...

          "The article says the wings will be replaced, which implies they're not fixed."

          Fixed wing aircraft: Look, it's a plane!

          Rotary wing aircraft: Look, it's a helicopter!

          Folding wing aircraft: Look, it's a plane from an aircraft carrier!

      4. Kernel

        Re: Good on them, I say...

        ". I suspect the Marines wouldn't want them as their doctrine is to be able to deploy as part of a maritime force on USN shipping and good as it is the A-10 isn't carrier capable."

        '

        Neither is the C-130 Hercules in theory - but that doesn't alter the fact that the C-130s carrier capability has been demonstrated.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like