USAF wants to mothball A10 fleet for F35s
01-06-2014, 04:10 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 215
01-29-2014, 03:03 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: On the Rock
Posts: 162
Ayotte warns Air Force may violate law on A-10 | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com
Looks like the USAF is getting some push back. A-10: the plane that won't die...not a bad military trait.
Looks like the USAF is getting some push back. A-10: the plane that won't die...not a bad military trait.
01-30-2014, 08:46 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 931
If today's Congress was around 60 years ago, we'd still be flying C-47s and P-51s (because they were awesome and won wars and lots of people like them and stuff). I've flown two airplanes that are now on sticks at the Hurlburt Air Park. Time stands still for no man. Get over it.
01-30-2014, 11:57 PM
#36
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Gran Torino
If today's Congress was around 60 years ago, we'd still be flying C-47s and P-51s (because they were awesome and won wars and lots of people like them and stuff). I've flown two airplanes that are now on sticks at the Hurlburt Air Park. Time stands still for no man. Get over it.
F-15 replacing F-4 for air superiority
F-16 replacing F-4 for multi-role (but not Wild Weasel)
F-15E replacing F-111 and F-4 for Deep Strike/Interdiction
A-10 didn't replace anything. It filled the empty role held by the A-1 Skyraider.
F-16 replacing the A-7
KC-135 replacing KC-97
B-52 replacing B-47 and B-36
E-3 replacing RC-121
T-37 replacing T-34
T-6 replacing T-34
T-38 replacing T-33
F-18 replacing F-4
C-130 replacing C-123 and C-47
Examples that were neutral:
T-6 replacing the T-37: the T-6 is a much better aircraft, but almost too easy to fly. Transition to the T-38 is more difficult.
EF-18G and the EA-6B: also an excellent aircraft in terms of performance, but I'm told not as good of a Jammer. Better HARM shooter, though.
B-1B and B-52. The B-1 is a great low-altitude strike aircraft, but the mission is all but gone. The B-1 is always on the chopping block, and B-52 isn't.
F-18 and F-14D: while the Hornet is cheaper to operate, the Super Tomcat had some impressive abilities
F-18 and A-6E: Better fighter (Intruder had no air-to-air ability), but not as good of a strike aircraft (smaller bomb load; I saw them in the Gulf War with 20 CBU each, I think)
And negatives:
RQ-4 Global Hawk and the U-2: Fail. The Global Hawk's survival record is dismal and is costing a fortune. The Air Force has reluctantly realized they have to keep the U-2 alive.
KC-46: how Boeing could take 15 years to add a boom to a 33-year old design, and charge $250 million each, is beyond reason. They are buying 179 of them, so they can not replace all of the KC-135s. The KC-46 only has 10% more fuel offload capacity than the Stratotanker.
F-111 to replace the F-100, F-89, F-105, and supplant the F-4, F-102, and F-106. The Vark was the "Plane for every Service and every Mission." The Navy wouldn't accept it, and the Air Force realized it couldn't be a fighter. It was a great bomber, especially the F-111F, but it never met its design criteria.
The F-35: for the second time, a "plane for all occasions," ironically built in the same plant as the F-111. It is supposed to replace the F-16, A-10, F-18, AV-8B, and F-15E.
It was supposed to:
Be more or equally maneuverable
Have equivalent or better range
Equivalent or better weapons load, and accuracy
Be stealthier than an F-16
Reduce operational costs
Reduce logistical costs through a common airframe
It can do none of those things.
The only reason this airplane is still alive is because of the political money involved in it. To cancel it means someone wouldn't get their lucrative contract or political stepping-stone.
I don't really like the F-22, either: too expensive to buy; too expensive to operate (rumored at $50,000 an hour). But at least it meets all of its design promises.
I've flown one of the airplanes at Hurlburt, too. I'm not against change when it makes sense. I loved the F-4, but can concede when the facts say it is time to go.
(Uh...the AFSOC at Hurlburt is still flying DC-3s there (although re-engined with PT-6s). They are also flying Mi-8 Hips, and 1947 technology An-2 Colts).
Yes, time stands still for no man. Tempest fugit. But when I see fraud and deception on a national level, I won't "get over it."
01-31-2014, 06:57 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 931
No one argues the emotion vested in combat-proven aircraft. Here are examples where newer was better:
F-15 replacing F-4 for air superiority
F-16 replacing F-4 for multi-role (but not Wild Weasel)
F-15E replacing F-111 and F-4 for Deep Strike/Interdiction
A-10 didn't replace anything. It filled the empty role held by the A-1 Skyraider.
F-16 replacing the A-7
KC-135 replacing KC-97
B-52 replacing B-47 and B-36
E-3 replacing RC-121
T-37 replacing T-34
T-6 replacing T-34
T-38 replacing T-33
F-18 replacing F-4
C-130 replacing C-123 and C-47
Examples that were neutral:
T-6 replacing the T-37: the T-6 is a much better aircraft, but almost too easy to fly. Transition to the T-38 is more difficult.
EF-18G and the EA-6B: also an excellent aircraft in terms of performance, but I'm told not as good of a Jammer. Better HARM shooter, though.
B-1B and B-52. The B-1 is a great low-altitude strike aircraft, but the mission is all but gone. The B-1 is always on the chopping block, and B-52 isn't.
F-18 and F-14D: while the Hornet is cheaper to operate, the Super Tomcat had some impressive abilities
F-18 and A-6E: Better fighter (Intruder had no air-to-air ability), but not as good of a strike aircraft (smaller bomb load; I saw them in the Gulf War with 20 CBU each, I think)
And negatives:
RQ-4 Global Hawk and the U-2: Fail. The Global Hawk's survival record is dismal and is costing a fortune. The Air Force has reluctantly realized they have to keep the U-2 alive.
KC-46: how Boeing could take 15 years to add a boom to a 33-year old design, and charge $250 million each, is beyond reason. They are buying 179 of them, so they can not replace all of the KC-135s. The KC-46 only has 10% more fuel offload capacity than the Stratotanker.
F-111 to replace the F-100, F-89, F-105, and supplant the F-4, F-102, and F-106. The Vark was the "Plane for every Service and every Mission." The Navy wouldn't accept it, and the Air Force realized it couldn't be a fighter. It was a great bomber, especially the F-111F, but it never met its design criteria.
The F-35: for the second time, a "plane for all occasions," ironically built in the same plant as the F-111. It is supposed to replace the F-16, A-10, F-18, AV-8B, and F-15E.
It was supposed to:
Be more or equally maneuverable
Have equivalent or better range
Equivalent or better weapons load, and accuracy
Be stealthier than an F-16
Reduce operational costs
Reduce logistical costs through a common airframe
It can do none of those things.
The only reason this airplane is still alive is because of the political money involved in it. To cancel it means someone wouldn't get their lucrative contract or political stepping-stone.
I don't really like the F-22, either: too expensive to buy; too expensive to operate (rumored at $50,000 an hour). But at least it meets all of its design promises.
I've flown one of the airplanes at Hurlburt, too. I'm not against change when it makes sense. I loved the F-4, but can concede when the facts say it is time to go.
(Uh...the AFSOC at Hurlburt is still flying DC-3s there (although re-engined with PT-6s). They are also flying Mi-8 Hips, and 1947 technology An-2 Colts).
Yes, time stands still for no man. Tempest fugit. But when I see fraud and deception on a national level, I won't "get over it."
F-15 replacing F-4 for air superiority
F-16 replacing F-4 for multi-role (but not Wild Weasel)
F-15E replacing F-111 and F-4 for Deep Strike/Interdiction
A-10 didn't replace anything. It filled the empty role held by the A-1 Skyraider.
F-16 replacing the A-7
KC-135 replacing KC-97
B-52 replacing B-47 and B-36
E-3 replacing RC-121
T-37 replacing T-34
T-6 replacing T-34
T-38 replacing T-33
F-18 replacing F-4
C-130 replacing C-123 and C-47
Examples that were neutral:
T-6 replacing the T-37: the T-6 is a much better aircraft, but almost too easy to fly. Transition to the T-38 is more difficult.
EF-18G and the EA-6B: also an excellent aircraft in terms of performance, but I'm told not as good of a Jammer. Better HARM shooter, though.
B-1B and B-52. The B-1 is a great low-altitude strike aircraft, but the mission is all but gone. The B-1 is always on the chopping block, and B-52 isn't.
F-18 and F-14D: while the Hornet is cheaper to operate, the Super Tomcat had some impressive abilities
F-18 and A-6E: Better fighter (Intruder had no air-to-air ability), but not as good of a strike aircraft (smaller bomb load; I saw them in the Gulf War with 20 CBU each, I think)
And negatives:
RQ-4 Global Hawk and the U-2: Fail. The Global Hawk's survival record is dismal and is costing a fortune. The Air Force has reluctantly realized they have to keep the U-2 alive.
KC-46: how Boeing could take 15 years to add a boom to a 33-year old design, and charge $250 million each, is beyond reason. They are buying 179 of them, so they can not replace all of the KC-135s. The KC-46 only has 10% more fuel offload capacity than the Stratotanker.
F-111 to replace the F-100, F-89, F-105, and supplant the F-4, F-102, and F-106. The Vark was the "Plane for every Service and every Mission." The Navy wouldn't accept it, and the Air Force realized it couldn't be a fighter. It was a great bomber, especially the F-111F, but it never met its design criteria.
The F-35: for the second time, a "plane for all occasions," ironically built in the same plant as the F-111. It is supposed to replace the F-16, A-10, F-18, AV-8B, and F-15E.
It was supposed to:
Be more or equally maneuverable
Have equivalent or better range
Equivalent or better weapons load, and accuracy
Be stealthier than an F-16
Reduce operational costs
Reduce logistical costs through a common airframe
It can do none of those things.
The only reason this airplane is still alive is because of the political money involved in it. To cancel it means someone wouldn't get their lucrative contract or political stepping-stone.
I don't really like the F-22, either: too expensive to buy; too expensive to operate (rumored at $50,000 an hour). But at least it meets all of its design promises.
I've flown one of the airplanes at Hurlburt, too. I'm not against change when it makes sense. I loved the F-4, but can concede when the facts say it is time to go.
(Uh...the AFSOC at Hurlburt is still flying DC-3s there (although re-engined with PT-6s). They are also flying Mi-8 Hips, and 1947 technology An-2 Colts).
Yes, time stands still for no man. Tempest fugit. But when I see fraud and deception on a national level, I won't "get over it."
02-03-2014, 06:57 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Video report on F-35 training in FL.
Inside the F-35: Pilot Training - myChamplainValley.com
Anybody know the people involved in the interview?
Inside the F-35: Pilot Training - myChamplainValley.com
Anybody know the people involved in the interview?
02-03-2014, 01:44 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. - While F-35s are not expected to arrive in Vermont until 2020, those who will fly or fix them will require extensive training before hand.
WWII would have been over before we trained any pilots!
02-03-2014, 02:05 PM
#40
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,033
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
